Why did Jesus Christ establish a Church? [Archive] - Page 2

JoeT777

Feb 20, 2010, 10:35 PM

Fred and Joe T,

If my ideas came across as Fred puts it,as 'an attitude' then I apologize.
I can assure you I have nothing against any denomination.

I didn't detect any 'attitude'. Did I miss something?

My posting was not intended to be a scientific attack on Catholic beliefs. In fact I didn't mention science at all. It was intended to be a historical account.

I didn't think it was an 'attack' at all. I thought my response only addressed the validity of 'pastoral ethics' so I'm a bit confused about your comment.

In case I didn't mention it, I think it is a very difficult thing (imposable would be a better word) to apply any philosophical field of science to Catholicism, only because we aren't dealing with something strictly of the natural world or for that matter human thought. This is probably why metaphysics fell out of favor as a science in the past couple of hundred years – you just can't 'prove' anything about something as unknown as the spiritual world is. And it seems the modern world wants 'answers' for spiritual questions as well as natural ones. In part, you might say this had a lot to do with the global warming hoax.

The philosophies of Stoicism, Platonism and Epicureanism were well established during the early Christian years. Many philosophies contain two elements. There is a theoretical element and a practical element. These philosophies were no different. By practical I mean philosophies that provide us with a prescription for living in the physical world.(Pastoral ethics for the want of a better word)

Yes, there are both theoretical and the practical elements. However, you can't form propositions on a complete unknown. We can make all sorts of probative postulates, but don't have a way to test them. I don't care if it Stoicism or Platonism. But, all these pre-date Christianity by some 300-years. The philosophies were already entrenched. So, it would only be natural to inherit at least the fundamental mode of reasoning. Of course the conflicting tenets were summarily dismissed.

There are some parallels between St. Augustine to Aristotelianism, which was 4th century B.C. and influenced both Judaism and Catholicism. St. Thomas Aquinas of course re-formulated Aristotelianism philosophy rolling it completely into much of Catholic thought. However, this was in the 13th century A.D. influencing only modern thought in Catholicism not the early Church.

Also too, don't forget that the first 300-plus years of Catholicism most of the Catholic Church was experiencing the wrath of the great persecution. In the intervening period between the ascension of Christ and Constantine it was a little difficult to be philosophical while hanging from a Roman Cross or while being eaten by a lion in the great circuses of the Roman Empire.

What I am saying is that during the early Christian years the emphasis was on the practical. By the time we get to philosophers such as St Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine we find something completely different. There is the emphasis on 'right' reasoning', ontology and deductive thinking.

I disagree, I think St. Augustine and St. Thomas brought a discipline (scholasticism) to Catholicism without losing the spiritual aspects of our faith.

JoeT

arcura

Feb 20, 2010, 11:11 PM

Tut,
Please accept my apology.
Somehow I thot that you had a negative attitude concerning the Catholic Church.
Apparently I was wrong.
Please and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 21, 2010, 04:04 AM

I didn’t detect any ‘attitude’. Did I miss something?

I didn’t think it was an ‘attack’ at all. I thought my response only addressed the validity of ‘pastoral ethics’ so I’m a bit confused about your comment.

In case I didn’t mention it, I think it is a very difficult thing (imposable would be a better word) to apply any philosophical field of science to Catholicism, only because we aren’t dealing with something strictly of the natural world or for that matter human thought. This is probably why metaphysics fell out of favor as a science in the past couple of hundred years – you just can’t ‘prove’ anything about something as unknown as the spiritual world is. And it seems the modern world wants ‘answers’ for spiritual questions as well as natural ones. In part, you might say this had a lot to do with the global warming hoax.

Yes, there are both theoretical and the practical elements. However, you can’t form propositions on a complete unknown. We can make all sorts of probative postulates, but we’ve don’t have a way to test them. I don’t care if it Stoicism or Platonism. But, all these pre-date Christianity by some 300-years. The philosophies were already entrenched. So, it would only be natural to inherit at least the fundamental mode of reasoning. Of course the conflicting tenets were summarily dismissed.

There are some parallels between St. Augustine to Aristotelianism, which was 4th century B.C. and influenced both Judaism and Catholicism. St. Thomas Aquinas of course re-formulated Aristotelianism philosophy rolling it completely into much of Catholic thought. However, this was in the 13th century A.D. influencing only modern thought in Catholicism not the early Church.

Also too, don’t forget that the first 300-plus years of Catholicism most of the Catholic Church was experiencing the wrath of the great persecution. In the intervening period between the ascension of Christ and Constantine it was a little difficult to be philosophical while hanging from a Roman Cross or while being eaten by a lion in the great circuses of the Roman Empire.

I disagree, I think St. Augustine and St. Thomas brought a discipline (scholasticism) to Catholicism without losing the spiritual aspects of our faith.

JoeT

Hi Joe T,

No problem. I thought that you were suggesting that I was launching a scientific attack on the Catholic Church. Obviously a misunderstanding on my part.

Your position seems to be that faith is not reliant on history, language or science. No doubt you would also want to say that faith stretches across the ages unchanged to by any external influence.

It is a pointless exercise in arguing over the epistemological validity of faith. This is because there are extreme points of view ranging from the claim that faith has no validity and is nothing more than a mistaken state of mind. You and I would probably call unfounded scientific philosophy.

There is also the possibility that faith can be used to arrive a certain truths. By this I mean the belief that faith and reason co operate to give us an epistemology which naturally points to a divine purpose. The ontological argument is a product of this type of apriori reasoning. At this end of the spectrum I see faith becoming reason and reason becoming faith.

Would I be right in saying that you do not believe that faith can evolve?

I would argue that St. Thomas recognized this problem and this is why he was critical of St. Anselm. St. Anselm was caught up in Platonism while St. Thomas was influenced by Aristotle, hence his cosmological argument.

Regards

Tut

JoeT777

Feb 21, 2010, 10:52 AM

Hi Joe T, Your position seems to be that faith is not reliant on history, language or science. No doubt you would also want to say that faith stretches across the ages unchanged to by any external influence.

Not quite, I think you are using 'faith' to mean knowing 'God's Truth;' they are two different things. I'll try to explain below.

It is a pointless exercise in arguing over the epistemological validity of faith. This is because there are extreme points of view ranging from the claim that faith has no validity and is nothing more than a mistaken state of mind. You and I would probably call unfounded scientific philosophy.

I don't think that it's pointless, nor too extreme of views to use the disciplines of epistemological for the study of God's revelations. I think our disagreement is in what the science is being used for.

The science of epistemology is perfectly valid to explore the origin, nature, methods, and limits of natural human knowledge. It's when epistemology is used to explore the yet revealed supernatural spiritual world; this is when it seems to get into trouble. But, in the same breath, when exploring our human nature we can't completely discount the supernatural. That is to say that God works in the affairs of men in varying different ways, and this can't be accounted for in a pure science. I would disagree that 'faith' has no validity, at least as you've phrased it above; and, in matters of the divine, when in perfect cooperation with faith a clarity of mind or Truth, is the result.

There is also the possibility that faith can be used to arrive at certain truths. By this I mean the belief that faith and reason cooperate to give us an epistemology which naturally points to a divine purpose. The ontological argument is a product of this type of a priori reasoning. At this end of the spectrum I see faith becoming reason and reason becoming faith.

Would I be right in saying that you do not believe that faith can evolve?

I think I better explain here. There are differences in the definitions of faith and truth they aren't necessarily one in the same thing. We're starting to throw around words that seem to have different definitions for the two of us. As best I can understand, I'll parrot St. Thomas (short version).

Faith is a grace, a Divine efficacious gift most always requiring cooperation of the human will to work within the intellect. Virtuous faith proceeds to the virtue of hope, which is the desire of things not possessed or not yet wholly realized. Hope in its turn proceeds to a virtuous charity and love of God, and by extension the neighbor. "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not… By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God: that from invisible things visible things might be made.“ (Heb 11:1-3)

Divine TRUTH on the other hand is God's will. We can unequivocally state that God=Truth and such a Truth is absolute and immutable. So, to know a certain Divine truth in Christ's time is to know the same truth today. However, what can change is the full importance of that truth. Explaining it another way, if as in science we say that God's truth is axiomatic, then that axiom remains immutable, but various different corollaries can be deduced. In this way Catholic dogmatic truth remain alive in faith. You might say that the revealed truth shines a Divine intellectual light on life; the truth is in the light, the science is in the 'particulars' of the revealed object.

O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2

Consequently, I view all the sciences of philosophy, including the discipline of epistemology, as a tool of the intellect in the process of internalizing faith in a comprehensive body of knowledge; which of course produces hope, and charity. By the way, this process works backwards too, by giving charity; we can produce hope, which in turn looks to receive faith. Thus, in being charitable to a child by teaching knowledge of God produces a hope that looks to a faith which proceeds baptism, or any of the other sacramental graces.

I would argue that St. Thomas recognized this problem and this is why he was critical of St. Anselm. St. Anselm was caught up in Platonism while St. Thomas was influenced by Aristotle, hence his cosmological argument.

Considering the above, I would argue that St. Thomas and St. Anselm used two different intellectual tools internalizing or arriving at a logical understanding (knowledge) of the same cosmological Truths revealed by God.

JoeT

TUT317

Feb 21, 2010, 02:58 PM

Not quite, I think you are using 'faith' to mean knowing 'God's Truth;' they are two different things. I'll try to explain below.

I don't think that it's pointless, nor too extreme of views to use the disciplines of epistemological for the study of God's revelations. I think our disagreement is in what the science is being used for.

I think I better explain here. There are differences in the definitions of faith and truth they aren't necessarily one in the same thing. We're starting to throw around words that seem to have different definitions for the two of us. As best I can understand, I'll parrot St. Thomas (short version).

Faith is a grace, a Divine efficacious gift most always requiring cooperation of the human will to work within the intellect. Virtuous faith proceeds to the virtue of hope, which is the desire of things not possessed or not yet wholly realized. Hope in its turn proceeds to a virtuous charity and love of God, and by extension the neighbor. "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not… By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God: that from invisible things visible things might be made.“ (Heb 11:1-3)

Divine TRUTH on the other hand is God's will. We can unequivocally state that God=Truth and such a Truth is absolute and immutable. So, to know a certain Divine truth in Christ's time is to know the same truth today. However, what can change is the full importance of that truth. Explaining it another way, if as in science we say that God's truth is axiomatic, then that axiom remains immutable, but various different corollaries can be deduced. In this way Catholic dogmatic truth remain alive in faith. You might say that the revealed truth shines a Divine intellectual light on life; the truth is in the light, the science is in the 'particulars' of the revealed object.

O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2

Consequently, I view all the sciences of philosophy, including the discipline of epistemology, as a tool of the intellect in the process of internalizing faith in a comprehensive body of knowledge; which of course produces hope, and charity. By the way, this process works backwards too, by giving charity; we can produce hope, which in turn looks to receive faith. Thus, in being charitable to a child by teaching knowledge of God produces a hope that looks to a faith which proceeds baptism, or any of the other sacramental graces.

Considering the above, I would argue that St. Thomas and St. Anselm used two different intellectual tools internalizing or arriving at a logical understanding (knowledge) of the same cosmological Truths revealed by God.

JoeT

Hi Joe,

When you say, "I think our disagreement is what the science is being used for" hits the nail right on the head.

Because I am not a Catholic I tend to see things from the outside in. As a result I tend to want to put things into neat little boxes. Unfortunately this is all that I can do. I understand what you are saying, but I still need to "box things".

I think that St. Thomas would claim that faith is a reliable source of knowledge. As good as any so to speak. Faith of course does not necessarily rely on the senses, but it can. "From invisible things visible things might be made."

This is where I think St. Thomas wants to bring in induction. There is no doubt that he was impressed by the works of Aristotle. This is also where he wants to bring the two together, hence the cosmological argument.

As you have framed it, Divine Truth is a deductive process. If what I am saying is correct do you think that Natural Theology holds that we can infer God's existence through induction and deduction? In other words would you allow for induction to be included as part of a definition of faith?

Overall I can see what you mean by the importance of claiming that faith and truth and not necessarily one and the same.

Regards

Tut

arcura

Feb 21, 2010, 04:08 PM

TUT317,
While I do believe that God's perfect, infinite faith can not evolve mine certainly has over the years.
Would that I have the faith I have now as a young man.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 21, 2010, 04:30 PM

Hi Joe,

When you say, "I think our disagreement is what the science is being used for" hits the nail right on the head.

Because I am not a Catholic I tend to see things from the outside in. As a result I tend to want to put things into neat little boxes. Unfortunately this is all that I can do. I understand what you are saying, but I still need to "box things".

Me too – except you might say I put things of faith inside a bigger box of Catholicism; you might say boxes within a box.

I think that St. Thomas would claim that faith is a reliable source of knowledge. As good as any so to speak. Faith of course does not necessarily rely on the senses, but it can. "From invisible things visible things might be made."

The Virtue of Faith might more rightly be defined as “The authority of the Apostle suffices.”

Though some say that the above words of the Apostle are not a definition of faith, yet if we consider the matter aright, this definition overlooks none of the points in reference to which faith can be defined, albeit the words themselves are not arranged in the form of a definition, just as the philosophers touch on the principles of the syllogism, without employing the syllogistic form. SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The virtue itself of faith (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 4) (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3004.htm)

Whereas faith itself would be considered; “Accordingly if we consider, in faith, the formal aspect of the object, it is nothing else than the First Truth. For the faith of which we are speaking, does not assent to anything, except because it is revealed by God.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , II, II, 1)

This is where I think St. Thomas wants to bring in induction. There is no doubt that he was impressed by the works of Aristotle. This is also where he wants to bring the two together, hence the cosmological argument.

Yes, I think the assessment is fair. I would add that the type of inductive reasoning should be thought of more as a tool called 'Aristotelianism' on the laboratory bench. The caution should be that this is weak inductive reasoning as opposed to strong inductive logic; thus it's the exceptions that, so to speak, prove the rule. Maybe I'm being too redundant, I just don't want to give the impression that we can easily move from the inductive to the deductive, normally found in science and mathematics today.

As you have framed it, Divine Truth is a deductive process. If what I am saying is correct do you think that Natural Theology holds that we can infer God's existence through induction and deduction? In other words would you allow for induction to be included as part of a definition of faith?

No, as framed Divine Truth is still also a weak inductive logic. If it were a deductive logic we could 'prove,' analytically, the existence of God; which we can't do.

Therefore we most decidedly cannot use natural theology to infer anything natural science ( In fact I might argue that there is even such a thing if it relates to the divine.} Of late the only natural theology I've seen is what formed the hoax of a faith in global warming. But, since we've narrowed down the field to St. Thomas' views; he responds to the question whether faith can be an object of science:

Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that "when a thing is manifest, it is the object, not of faith, but of perception." Therefore things that are of faith are not the object of perception, whereas what is an object of science is the object of perception. Therefore there can be no faith about things which are an object of science (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , II, II, 1)

JoeT

arcura

Feb 21, 2010, 07:15 PM

These observations concerning faith and The Church are very interesting to me.
Much Thanks to you both,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 21, 2010, 07:34 PM

I think what you are trying to say Tut is that Greek thinking took over from the essentially Jewish thinking that existed in early christianity, This was inevietable and started with Paul who had to explain Christ, a purely Jewish concept, to non Jews. Once we had the professional church set up by Constantine it was inevietable it should descend into philosophy. the Jewish apostles would never have set up the Roman Catholic Church, it was all they could get their mind around to realise that what they did had to include the gentiles and it took Paul to make them see that the old Jewish rules didn't apply to the gentiles. the RCC as "the Church" is a construct of later centuries and only came into existence after the split with the orthodox who have equal right to claim to be the "Church" Christ set up

Hello Paraclete,

Thank you for your contribution. You are obviously a better historian than myself.

Regards

Tut

TUT317

Feb 21, 2010, 07:37 PM

TUT317,
While I do believe that God's perfect, infinite faith can not evolve mine certainly has over the years.
Would that I have the faith I have now as a young man.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, I couldn't agree more.

Tut

Fr_Chuck

Feb 21, 2010, 07:46 PM

And I want to thank you all, I don't know I have ever had a thread in christianity go this far and not end up with a free for all. *** not that we are not really off the original post but what the heck, it is Freds post.

I am not following this thread, so if it appears to be coming to a end, let me know, or report it, if it starts to go down hill.

Fr Chuck

arcura

Feb 21, 2010, 08:39 PM

Fr_Chuck,
I think this question thread has produced far more than I expected. It has given great depth to the question on why Jesus established His Church.
The post here have brought to my mind that Jesus was the first Christian philosopher and some of Hid apostles like Paul were also.
It also broadened my appreciation for what The Church stood for 2000 years ago and still does.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 21, 2010, 09:08 PM

Hi Joe,

I can see that from the Catholic point of view that nothing can become apparent without faith. The idea of substance is of course important here. I can see a parallel with Bishop Berkeley's Idealism.

There is no doubt that faith and reason was a important contributing factor for the parting of the ways when it came to Catholic and Protestant philosophies.

I see myself somewhat fortunate because I can be a Protestant and a Kantian at the same time. This is because any type of synthesis of faith and reason is not strictly adhered to.

Kant thought religion was not the subject of reason, evidence or argument but rather a matter of feelings, motives and emotions. It becomes apparent that Kant is an ethical subjectivist.

Kant attempted to establish the existence of God through morality. As an admirer of Kant I will have to settle for," being beguiled by man".

Thanks for your efforts Joe. Not being a Catholic I found your comments and references very enlightening.

Regards

Tut

arcura

Feb 21, 2010, 09:18 PM

inhisservice

Feb 22, 2010, 12:37 AM

JoeT777

Ok I will start another thread for our discussion. It will be titled "IS the 'Church' the same as the 'Roman Catholic Church'?". I hope you Join me there.

JoeT777

Feb 22, 2010, 02:00 PM

TUT317
I think that Kant's view of finding God to be interesting for I DO believe that believing in and practicing good morality can lead a person to God for I think that morality is a logical and philosophical proof of God's existence.
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

I find Kant's views antithetical to Catholicism. I don't read much of him, but it's my understanding Kant holds to moral subjectivism. By definition this seems opposed to right reasoning in the faith or moral objectivism. The philosophy holds to an axiom that an individual is an autonomous universal morality; that is something opposed to an objective morality received from the divine. Immanuel Kant was the philosophical daddy of the 'age of enlightenment' which has brought us the French Revolution and it's day of terror (hundreds of thousands of Catholics were killed, including bishops priests, nuns, and brothers). It also was the philosophical root for Hitler's night of terror and the resulting “Jew solution', and the communist revolution. In fact, I think it was Lennon who stated that he modeled his Marxist revolution on the French revolution. This moral subjectivism is at the root of liberal-socialist politics today. I don't see much good in it.

JoeT

TUT317

Feb 22, 2010, 05:20 PM

I find Kant's views antithetical to Catholicism. I don’t read much of him, but it’s my understanding Kant holds to moral subjectivism. By definition this seems opposed to right reasoning in the faith or moral objectivism. The philosophy holds to an axiom of an individual is an autonomous universal morality; that is something opposed to an objective morality received from the divine.

JOE THIS IS TOTALLY CORRECT

Immanuel Kant was the philosophical daddy of the ‘age of enlightenment’ which has brought us the French Revolution and it's day of terror (hundreds of thousands of Catholics were killed, including bishops priests, nuns, and brothers). It also was the philosophical root for Hitler’s night of terror and the resulting “Jew solution’, and the communist revolution. In fact, I think it was Lennon who stated that he modeled his Marxist revolution on the French revolution. This moral subjectivism is at the root of liberal-socialist politics today. I don’t see much good in it.

JOE THIS IS TOTALLY INCORRECT.

What you have here is a massive generalization. It is impossible to say that Liberalism is responsible for all of the above evils.

Even if it were true, this has little to do with Kant. This is because Kant is not a Liberal philosopher. Of course Kant was part of the Enlightenment movement but he was not an empirical philosopher of the type we find responsible for the French Revolution. Kant is a rational philosopher and found himself sometimes opposed to the ideas of people such as Rousseau.

I can go through Kant's vast and varied writings and find many examples which show Kant as a pacifist.

In his ANTI- REVOLUTIONARY essay," Perpetual Peace " Kant writes that the idea of a right to rebel against a government is unthinkable. His other ANTI- REVOLUTIONARY essay ,"Theory and Practice''

There is no evidence to suggest Kant was anti- monarchist.
"Whether ELECTED or UNELECTED the moral person who holds legislative power is representative of the people united as a whole and thus the sovereign".

I could keep on finding quotes which support the claim that Kant was not a Liberal, not a Empiricist, and not anti-monarchy.

If you wanted to say that Rousseau was responsible for the French Revolution I would probably go along with that. But Kant? No.

To say that Kant was responsible for the French Revolution makes about as much sense as saying that Hegel was responsible for the rise of Hitler.

Regards
Tut

arcura

Feb 22, 2010, 06:54 PM

inhisservice,
I'll take a look at the new thread.
Fred

JoeT777

Feb 22, 2010, 07:19 PM

Tut:

Apparently I hit a sore spot, Sorry about that. But, I'm not interested in the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, Marx or any of the others. I don't read mental poison. Did you ever read the reference I made to Liberalism is a Sin? If you haven't you should.

But, I didn't say he was the daddy of the revolution. I said he was the “philosophical daddy.” And Hegel was similarly responsible for Hitler's 'moral philosophy'. To deny that there is no philosophical connection is ludicrous. In fact Hitler studied Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, and Treitschke while in prison writing Mein Kampf. All of them had philosophical connections to Kant. Karl Marx included much of Kant's philosophy in his “Communist Manifesto”. Nietzsche, if I recall, philosophized that “God is dead.” Collectively they make up the bigger part of modern day LIBERALISM. Do they not teach this stuff in schools anymore - or are these men made out to be big heroes today? Frankly, I wouldn't give you two cents for the lot of them.

JoeT

monkeydamyo

Feb 22, 2010, 08:16 PM

I believe that Jesus was not concentrating on creation of a church but to preach gods grace, to be the embodiment of the love that is gods will. I think he knew that as he taught people his actions would be replicated and his lessons retaught, so he just went with it, making sure his lessons were all taught. I think Jesus meant for the church to be where gods grace was taught and where we learned morals behavior/character less than a place of austere worship.

But worshiping god and teaching/acting out his love can go hand in hand, by acting out gods unconditional love, patience and forgiveness, we please god and in a way are accomplishing some of his will on earth- in doing so we are worshiping him in manner comparable to Jesus

arcura

Feb 22, 2010, 08:51 PM

monkeydamyo,
Thanks for your post.
In and before Jesus time people gathered together in an assembly to worship God.
And as you said to try to do as God directs or commands which it its own way is a form of worship.
In The Church today as in the very early Church God's word was spread, preached, learned and worshiped.
In that early Church there was also singing in the form of chants as the Jews had done and still do.
Icons and other artwork was done as is still evident today. That is also a form of worship.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

monkeydamyo

Feb 22, 2010, 10:28 PM

Fred that is a very good point- there are many ways to worship, on the note of artwork, these things all draw us together, even though it may be limited to a group, it still strengthens bonds and feelings, promoting god, in my opinion is promoting love, in this case through means of beauty.

arcura

Feb 22, 2010, 11:59 PM

monkeydamyo,
That is a very good observation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Feb 23, 2010, 03:24 AM

Tut:

Apparently I hit a sore spot, Sorry about that. But, I’m not interested in the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, Marx or any of the others. I don’t read mental poison. Did you ever read the reference I made to Liberalism is a Sin? If you haven’t you should.

But, I didn’t say he was the daddy of the revolution. I said he was the “philosophical daddy.” And as a matter of fact Hegel was similarly responsible for Hitler’s ‘moral philosophy’. To deny that there is no philosophical connection is ludicrous. In fact Hitler studied Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, and Treitschke while in prison writing Mein Kampf. All of them had philosophical connections to Kant. Karl Marx included much of Kant’s philosophy in his “Communist Manifesto”

JoeT

Hi Joe,

In answer to your first question, Yes I did read,'Liberalism is a Sin' I posted several comments at the time.

Yes, Hitler did read Nietzsche Hegel,Fichte and possibly Kant. However, I would seriously doubt that he would have understood any of them, especially Kant. Did any of these philosophers have philosophical connections to Kant? The answer is yes if you understand this connection in terms of idealism. Kant was an idealist philosopher, as was Plato, Hegel. Thomas Aquinas was also an idealist philosopher.

Joe, I am sure you would not want me to use 'blanket terms' such as expressed in the broad generalization that idealism holds that the most important element in nature of reality is mind or spirit. If I were to do this then I would have to include St. Thomas as part of the, "roots of idealism'. There are of course degrees of idealism, even extreme idealism which is found in Hegel. It is because there are degrees of idealism that more often than not idealist philosophers disagreed with each other. Don't forget that even though St. Anselm and St. Thomas were of the same tradition there was disagreement there.

If I were to lump all these philosophers together then you could quite rightly accuse me of being sloppy. Other than Kant, how does Liberalism fit into the German Idealism? How does Marx fit into German idealism? Did not Marx,"turn Hegel on his head".

Regards

Tut

arcura

Mar 5, 2010, 10:08 PM

Tut
I've been thinking about this and I wished I could answer your questions.
I just don't know enough about philosophers and their thoughts and writings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

TUT317

Mar 6, 2010, 10:53 PM

Tut
I've been thinking about this and I wished I could answer your questions.
I just don't know enough about philosophers and their thoughts and writings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't know if I can help you Fred but I will try.

It is not very useful to use very broad generalizations in philosophy, as is the case with most things. To say that all non-Catholic religions are Protestant is inaccurate and misleading.( not that anyone has said this, but it is just an example). When we look closely at individual religions we can see they are all different. The same applies to philosophy.

I can make a broad philosophical generalization and say that all philosophies can be divided into Idealism and Materialism. I will give you ONE example out of MANY examples to show why this generalization is not very useful.

Idealism is the theory that EVERYTHING can be reduced to ideas created by the mind. Physical objects are really creations of the mind. What we understand are things as they appear to us, but they are not really like appearances. It is claimed they have a reality which we don't comprehend.

Materialism is exactly the same except it claims that EVERYTHING can be explained in terms of the physical. The mind and mental events are really physical things. Some physical things like thinking only seem to be mental. It is claimed that everything can be explained as matter in motion.

I could go through history and pick out any number of philosophers and give them an Idealist or Materialist label. Sometimes the label fits, but most of the time it doesn't.

For example, Marx was influenced by German Idealism but he is not an Idealist philosopher in the Hegelian tradition. Yes, Marx and Hegel used a dialectical method in their reasoning. For Hegel history unfolds itself through this method. There is a type of 'spirit' or 'guiding hand' which results in this historical process being purposeful.

Marx on the other hand uses what is known as, Historical Materialism or class struggle. In other words, it is a physical process which determines how history is to unfold.

As we can see, to say Marx and Hegel are really no more than one and the same is totally wrong. Incidentally, this is why people say Marx turned Hegel on his head.

Regards

Tut

paraclete

Mar 6, 2010, 11:20 PM

This discussion has gotten right off the question, Why Jesus estabished a Church has nothing to do with philosopy and New Testament Christians are specifically told in scripture not to spend their time in philoposhy, Vain glorious imagings it is called

arcura

Mar 7, 2010, 03:58 PM

paraclete,
Excellent point and well made.
Yes, let's get back to the question of why (for what reasons) did Jesus establish His Church?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

inhisservice

Mar 7, 2010, 09:04 PM

arcura

Mar 7, 2010, 10:08 PM

inhisservice,
The reason given for turmulated that thread was give that it was getting out of hand.
I was sorry to see it ended also.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Mar 7, 2010, 10:37 PM

JoeT777

I did not want to address you through this post but I had no other option. We were discussing in a separate post and it was highly unfair of someone to terminate that discussion at that point when there were still a whole lot of issues you had not yet addressed and were evading. I think someone has tried to save you. If you want to treat that as an escape route then I would not trouble you and exit. But if not then I request you to join me at a new post called "Which is the true church started by Jesus Christ?" and we shall continue.

Try again? A what? An escape route? And where would I escape to? Any suggestions where I can find a Church foretold in prophecy, constituted by Christ, organized by the Apostles as a divine and perfect society, one necessary as a means of salvation, a church visible to the world with principle authority and jurisdiction, a Church with a universal Magisterium, and finally one commissioned by Christ? I can tell you where such a Church exists.

And how does one evade the Truth? And if one does 'evade' truth, does it make Truth any less true? If you were to best me in your 'challenge' would it make the one true Church any less True? It's not me you need to 'challenge' it's the Truth you need to challenge, God's Truth, the Church of Jesus Christ is a slave to it. Have at it kid, knock yourself out, it seems kind of fruitless to me.

But, answer this, if the Catholic Church isn't the one True Church which one is? There can only be one absolute truth, only one infallibly true Church. Don't misread 'infallible' to mean impeccable, we'll waste a bunch of time. Is a Church a building, a group of 2 or more? If so, why does scripture establish a 'Church government' a hierarchy of Bishops, priests, deacons, doctors, and the like? Surly you don't need Bishops for a Church of 2?

JoeT

arcura

Mar 7, 2010, 11:48 PM

JoeT,
Good statement AND questions.
I'm anxious to read the answers.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I Newton

Apr 10, 2010, 05:34 PM

Why ask such a question arcura?

You are here purely to promote your church.

When facts are presented to you that show the sins of your church you call it Catholic bashing and close the discussion.

You cannot discuss the issues because the evidence is overwhelming, not because people "hate" the church because of the name "Catholic".

If you want to claim you are part of the true church of Christ you should be able to discuss the questions of others rather then locking or deleting discussions.

If you are unable to logically discuss an issue it should make you realise you are on the wrong track.

I Newton

Apr 10, 2010, 06:29 PM

JoeT777

Apr 10, 2010, 11:05 PM

JoeT asked some interesting questions that Catholics praise; let us look at them.
> Any suggestions where I can find a Church foretold in prophecy<
You obviously think the RCC is that church.
Yet you ignore the prophecy that the church would be infiltrated by false teachings and would remain there until the end.

Yes you are correct, we shouldn’t ignore prophecy should we? Prophecies in the Old Testament tell of a future Kingdom holding the authority in the rule of the Messiah; Psalms 2 and 71; Isaiah 9:6 sq. We see that authority in the shepherd that leads his sheep between the fields of Divine Truth (Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24-28)

The Old Testament tells us of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messianic age, i.e. the Church. The Kingdom is meant for the sanctification of the twelve tribes as well as the Gentiles. Even kings are to serve and obey (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). It’s clear that a universal faith and common worship is implied:

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of the mountains, and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. And many nations shall come in haste, and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob: and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:1-2)

A unified worship, One worship under the authority who teaches and keeps the Divine Truth for all; “And it shall come to pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem: half of them to the east sea, and half of them to the last sea: they shall be in summer and in winter. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one. “ (Zechariah 14:8)

We see Christ as the first priest of the Kingdom, “The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.” (Psalm 109:4) And that priesthood is institutionalized in the Kingdom, “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). The priesthood in this Messianic Kingdom is a continuation of the priesthood in the Old Testament with continued sacrificial offerings; “Thus saith the Lord: if my covenant, with the day can be made void, and my covenant with the night, that there should not be day and night in their season" (Jeremiah 33:20)

> constituted by Christ<
And you are saying that the RCC which started 200 years after Jesus is that church.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that the Church was constituted by Christ while he walked the earth.

"Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

> organized by the Apostles<
And you are saying that the RCC which started 200 years after the Apostles organized their church IS that church.

Wrong again. It was organized by the Apostles after Christ’s Passion.

> a divine and perfect society<
Now, you finally got one right.

>one necessary as a means of salvation<
By the opinion of your church.

It is necessary according to Christ’s own words

> a church visible to the world<
BUT refuses to conform to the morals of even man’s governments, refusing to accept that raping children is a crime, refusing to accept that setting people on fire is actually an act that could only be perpetrated by devil worshippers, not loving Christians.

You prefer to shut down discussions that discuss the factual actions of it’s priests and Pope.

Now who’s stretching it?

We expect all the world to be against her Matthew 21:44.

You know, I was once told that the greatness of a man could be measured by the greatness of his enemies. Since the Church is the mystical Body of Christ, it too is like a man, and her enemies are great indeed.

I suppose in your mind her failings rights all the Jim Jones’ in the world? I should further surmise that had it not been for the Catholic Church Jim Jones would have only killed a few?

> with principle authority and jurisdiction<
A claim only made by the Catholic Church and cannot be backed up by scripture or history
Matthew 16:15 sqq.

> a universal Magisterium<
A claim only made by the Catholic Church and cannot be backed up by scripture or history
Her teaching in Christ is to be taught to all mankind,(Matthew 28:19), until the end of time (Matthew 13:49);

> one commissioned by Christ<
A claim only made by the Catholic Church and cannot be backed up by scripture or history with a 200 year gap from one to the other
The precepts for authority are in fact scriptural, the living memory of His words. The Church is constituted for the salvation of the faithful. Its claim as the Messianic Kingdom is the envy of the world. (Cf. Luke 4:21) Christ lays claim to His prophecy as Messianic King, in person, in his ‘real presence’. If you will read your book, you’ll see that Christ claims his universal Kingship in the New Solomon. (Matt 12:6). Lord over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5). The body is animated by the soul, as the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is animated by its soul the Holy Spirit. When asked by non-Catholics, I explain, Yes, I do place my faith in the Catholic Church, particularly what you call the Roman Catholic Church. I receive in return a direct connection with the Divine, a guide and rule over my faith, along with the administrations of sacraments Christ ordained for His Kingdom of redemption.

> And how does one evade the Truth?<
Well, from what I see here, you simply lock the discussion or even delete it.
You seem to be doing quite well.

> does it make Truth any less true?<
And that is exactly why the issues will not go away and you will have to continue to ban, lock and delete discussions.

> would it make the one true Church any less True?<
Not at all, but it does show which church is not the Only True Church.

You can’t debate ‘hidden’ truth? You can't show the hidden truth why sulk?

You’ve complained, whined, pouted, so like where is the proof?

> BUT it is a church that was started by Jesus, does not break God’s law or mans, stands spotless in a wicked generation, went underground when the Roman Government told them how they were going to worship God for the Roman Government to take it on as an approved religion, was persecuted rather than persecute, chooses love not war, members lay their life down for others as Jesus did rather than lay down the lives of others because they did not agree with their religious views, members die for their beliefs rather than kill for their beliefs, members who break man’s law are turned in to authorities because to break man’s law is also breaking God’s law, are not dogmatic and proud to say they are infallible, are very poor because they give rather than receive, have no pope or leader because all are equal, are lead by Jesus so have no divisions between then regardless of country or race or custom or tribe, their morals and conduct are guided by the extremely high standards of God rather than their local custom or traditions, there is only the written so lies cannot be passed down, they worship in spirit and truth so do not need symbols and statues and pictures and traditions to help them focus, they follow what Jesus said no matter how hard it is to do, they follow Jesus not to call religious teachers “father”, they do not put unrealistic and unbiblical restraints on people like celibacy, they follow the guidance from Jesus that a Bishop can be married, they do not take on the popular belief that began in the 1600s that a creation day is 24hrs, they follow the bible not philosophy, they are not tossed about by the knowledge of the day, and as Jesus said, by their LOVE you will recognise that they are the real church of Christ, not by their power, riches, pride, and ability to destroy historical facts and documents and even entire religions and town and cities, etc. etc. etc.

Her's your chance, lets get that truth out. If it's secret, how did you come by it? Where is this truth, and the proof that must follow, that the Church is ‘secret’!! Where’s the beef? Why was the Church on the streets of Jerusalem at Pentecost? Was it hiding under the pavement? Does God promise to protect the Church, even against the gates of hell and then hide it?

>The Catholic Church will give you plenty of philosophical reasons and volumes of explanations why they do different to what Jesus said, but the proof is in the pudding; the real only true church is easy to see when you are not blinded by pride and fear. In the least it is blindingly obvious which churches are NOT the true church.

Can you substantiate any of this? This is your hour to shine. Let’s see the pudding, how did the hidden church that nobody knew anything about yet lasted 2,000 years?

It’s my belief that there is a fullness of faith that is only found in the Catholic Church. In fact Paul makes this statement strait out. “And [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy: Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell “(Col 1:18-19) God fills that body with himself, the Mystical Body of Christ, firstborn from the dead that pleases God.

JoeT

I Newton

Apr 11, 2010, 03:25 AM

>A unified worship<
Which the RCC is not. Forget about the other side of the globe, one RCC priest on this side of town will teach different to the RCC on the other side of town.

>I’m saying that the Church was constituted by Christ while he walked the earth.<
Of course you say that, but it is not true and not backed up by scripture.

>It was organized by the Apostles after Christ’s Passion<
Says who? The RCC of course.

>I was once told that the greatness of a man could be measured by the greatness of his enemies<
The very same argument Hitler would use, but does not mean he was in the right.

An organisation that protects child rapists will obviously have many enemies.

Hitler also did enormous good for Germany which is why he had so much support. Hitler fed the starving and gave food and work to the people. Drug dealers also do a great deal of good so people will think they are good and clean; does not make them good.

>Her teaching in Christ is to be taught to all mankind<
But not by the RCC

>If it's secret, how did you come by it?<
No one said it was secret; you just cannot see it.

>Does God promise to protect the Church, even against the gates of hell and then hide it?<
Yes he does.
Interesting that it was the Pope that said, when trying to justify his deal with Hitler, that he would make a deal with the devil if it meant the preservation of the church. The Pope did not have faith in God to preotect the church.

>Can you substantiate any of this?<
It is in the papers every day, it is even on “60 minutes”. Only the blind faithful cannot see it.

And of course, there is so much evidence you Catholics shut down and lock down any discussion that repeats it.

>how did the hidden church that nobody knew anything about yet lasted 2,000 years?<
The Catholic Church did not succeed in destroying all opposition. People know about it; the RCCC just likes to make everyone think they are the only church.

>It’s my belief that there is a fullness of faith that is only found in the Catholic Church<
Of course you think that, because that is what you are told.

If you believe that a church that slaughters non-believers and sets people on fire and murders people for owning or reading a bible, is the church that Jesus supports, then there is nothing anyone can do for you and there is nothing anyone can say to you.

When one considers such terrible acts as Godly love, that one is truly lost and will never accept reason.

dwashbur

Apr 11, 2010, 10:20 AM

Fred,
As we currently understand the term "church" I'm not sure He did. What I see in the gospels and Acts is a group of believers who banded together for mutual edification, support and sharing of the story of Jesus with others. I don't think he had anything like our current denominations, organizational structures, hierarchies, and all that, in mind when he talked about building his church. I think the focus was on people, not on institutions or organizations. How those people organize and govern themselves is largely a matter of culture and preference.

I know you as a Catholic will disagree somewhat, because you believe in Apostolic Succession. I don't. Obviously, that colors my answer, so take that into account when reading it :)

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for I Newton to break into a chorus of Tom Lehrer's "The Vatican Rag"...

JoeT777

Apr 11, 2010, 12:19 PM

>A unified worship<
Which the RCC is not. Forget about the other side of the globe, one RCC priest on this side of town will teach different to the RCC on the other side of town.
This is not correct; it indicates a lack of knowledge regarding the Roman Catholic Church. She teaches the same Truth (God's Truth) taught by the Apostles.

>I'm saying that the Church was constituted by Christ while he walked the earth.<
Of course you say that, but it is not true and not backed up by scripture.
You obviously didn't read my response. I gave scriptural proof. I didn't notice any in any of your responses - did I miss something or were you just expressing an opinion?

>It was organized by the Apostles after Christ's Passion<
Says who? The RCC of course.
Says the scriptures.

>I was once told that the greatness of a man could be measured by the greatness of his enemies<
The very same argument Hitler would use, but does not mean he was in the right. An organization that protects child rapists will obviously have many enemies.

Hitler also did enormous good for Germany which is why he had so much support. Hitler fed the starving and gave food and work to the people. Drug dealers also do a great deal of good so people will think they are good and clean; does not make them good.

You know your comment about Hitler is funny. One of the predominate religions in Germany isn't Catholic but Lutheran. Why didn't the Lutherans and the other Protestant Churches stop Hitler instead of cooperating with him?

The quintessence of the Catholic-hater glosses over hundreds and thousands of cases in the Protestant and Evangelical churches. Here is just one link of what the filth of mankind is capable of, hundreds of cases from just one denomination- I wonder what the statistics would be for some 30,000 denominations: StopBaptistPredators.org (http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm)

And out of the heart of the Southern Baptist, Evangelical world, Nashville Tennessee we get a little different opinion from this report:

These statistics come from only three insurance underwriters — Church Mutual Insurance Co. GuideOne Insurance Co. and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. Together, they insure 165,495 churches and worship centers (most Protestant Churches are unaffiliated) for liability against child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct, mostly Protestant congregations but a few other faiths as well. They also insure more than 5,500 religious schools, camps and other organizations.

Church Mutual, GuideOne and Brotherhood Mutual each provided statistics on sex abuse claims to The Associated Press, although they did not produce supporting documentation or a way to determine whether the reports were credible. The largest company, Church Mutual, reported an average of about 100 sex abuse cases a year involving minors over the past decade. GuideOne, which has about half the clients of Church Mutual, said it has received an average of 160 reports of sex abuse against minors every year for the past two decades. Brotherhood Mutual said it has received an average of 73 reports of child sex abuse and other sexual misconduct every year for the past 15 years. However, Brotherhood does not specify which victims are younger than 18 so it is impossible to accurately add that to the total cases. 3 insurers shed light on Protestant church sex abuse | Top stories | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4890603.html)

This is just a tip of the iceberg; and it doesn't represent ALL the Protestant insurers in the U.S. underwriting sexual abuse! But, let's look at these statistics as if they represented all of the Protestant clergy abuse; on the average there are about 200 cases per year of abuse by Catholic Priests around the world, while at the same time there are about 300 cases reported each year by just these three Protestant insurance underwriters for only the United States. These statistics indicate a systemic problem in non-Catholic Churches that is being completely ignored. Maybe the Protestants can ask the Pope how they should handle the problem - seems he's doing a good job combating it even when it is found within his own ramparts.

So, where do we go from here? I know, let's talk about how the Catholic hater Jim Jones feed Cool-Aide to a thousand or more. Or, better still, let's talk about how evil affects us all.

>Her teaching in Christ is to be taught to all mankind<
But not by the RCC

Is this out of your ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church or do you have some kind of 'proof'. Remember you wanted space to show 'proof.' I haven't seen any yet.

>Does God promise to protect the Church, even against the gates of hell and then hide it?<
Yes He does.
Interesting that it was the Pope that said, when trying to justify his deal with Hitler that he would make a deal with the devil if it meant the preservation of the church. The Pope did not have faith in God to protect the church.

Does God give promises and then renege on them?

? Can you bring forward anything to substantiate this statement? Or should we go to “60 Minutes” for the 'OUR FAITH HOUR.'

>Can you substantiate any of this?<
It is in the papers every day, it is even on “60 minutes”. Only the blind faithful cannot see it. And of course, there is so much evidence you Catholics shut down and lock down any discussion that repeats it.

You believe everything you see on TV? I don't.

>how did the hidden church that nobody knew anything about yet lasted 2,000 years?<
The Catholic Church did not succeed in destroying all opposition. People know about it; the RCCC just likes to make everyone think they are the only church.
Again, can you bring forward anything to substantiate this statement? I still haven't seen any 'proof.'

>It's my belief that there is a fullness of faith that is only found in the Catholic Church<
Of course you think that, because that is what you are told.

My faith is reasoned, I can actually tell you what I know, what I believe and why. I don't need “60 Minutes” to 'know' with a human certainty. I studied both the history and the scriptures for an 'objective' Truth . From which I've come to believe, unlike the Protestant view, that the Catholic Church is the only infallible basis for the rule of faith. Most Christians, other than Catholic, form distinct groups of likeminded sole judges of the rule of faith. Since each individual has the same rights to 'believe' there can be as many different measures in faith as there are non-Catholic denominations. This produces chaos in the order of faith, a state antithetical to moral order. One and only one faith can be representative of God's [objective truth]. And, I'm equally certain that faith cannot be found on “60 Minutes.”

If you believe that a church that slaughters non-believers and sets people on fire and murders people for owning or reading a bible, is the church that Jesus supports, then there is nothing anyone can do for you and there is nothing anyone can say to you.
When one considers such terrible acts as Godly love, that one is truly lost and will never accept reason.

Why don't you start another thread about the 'slaughter of non-believers?' Then we can talk about the slaughter of Catholics by 'all do good' 'reformers' in the 100-years, or so, of war. We can discuss how the Protestants reformed Catholics by burning them at the stake, how they had Catholics drawn and quartered, how they confiscated their Churches and monasteries. Then we can put on the table how the Protestants performed 'witch hunts' that killed hundreds of thousands. We can extend this to show how it was predominantly Protestants who acted as Hitler's henchmen in concentration camps that killed millions of Jews and Catholics. You do remember that nearly as many Catholics died in Hitler's camps as did Jews, don't you?

What seems to be missing is that Christian faith ought to instill a love of God which, for most of us, starts a quest for the “truth” in our faith; not the a quest for which station '60 Minutes' comes on. That truth is found in the Logos, the Messiah. Further our faith ought to come to the conclusion that “… not only that truth is in [God], but that [God] is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth. “ Summa Prima Q, 15 a5. Consequently we can conclude that there is an absolute and infallible truth in the will of God. And, our faith must hold belief in Christ's commission of the Church, His appointment of its Vicar, and His pronouncement that that Church will prevail against the Gates of hell. This is because it is Scriptural TRUTH.

Some, such as Thomas Cranmer (1550) along with the Church he fathered (not to mention John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, or Martin Luther) rationalized away obedience in faith taught by God's Kingdom on earth (that is the Church). Instead they rationalized truth to “figurative speeches” requiring a loyalty to a prince of man instead of a Vicar of Christ. Thus, the will of God, the truth, becomes man's will for God's truth. In my opinion this is one of the greatest errors in Protestantism, theological and moral relativism; the subjugation of God's Will to the will of man, i.e. Protestantism.

JoeT

Wondergirl

Apr 11, 2010, 12:36 PM

One and only one faith can be representative of God’s absolute truth.
No church on earth represents God's absolute truth.

JoeT777

Apr 11, 2010, 12:55 PM

No church on earth represents God's absolute truth.

Thanks for the correction. I revised 'absolute' to 'objective' which is what was intended here.

I Newton

Apr 11, 2010, 03:42 PM

JoeT, say what you like about the unity of the RCC but one churches teaches different to the other. It, as usual is only the RCC which likes to claim that it is unified.

You did not give scripture proof of anything. I saw nothing of the word Catholic in your scriptures. So the only ones claiming that the scriptures refer to the RCC is only the RCC.

Where in the scriptures does it say the RCC was organised by the Apostles?
Where does it say the RCC was started by Jesus.
It is only the RCC that make such claims.
Every other religion can claim the very same thing.

>Why didn’t the Lutherans and the other Protestant Churches stop Hitler instead of cooperating with him?<
Because they are just as bad as the RCC, because the RCC is just as bad as the Protestants.

You have just given us all PROOF that the RCC is not the true church, even you admit the RCC is just as bad as the Protestants.

I do not single out RCCs, I point out that they are just as demonic as Protestants. It is Catholics who cry foul when I point this out because they are the ones who consider that because their religion was powerful and rich enough to destroy other religions then they MUST be the true church.

>So, where do we go from here?<
For starters stop burying your head in the sand and open your eyes to the fact that the Catholic Church is no better than and has the same divine authority as the Scouts Club, the local Karate class and all the other Protestant churches.

You said “Her teaching in Christ is to be taught to all mankind”
I said “But not by the RCC”
You said ‘show the proof’.

How much more proof do you need?
You are the one making the claim that it has the authority yet the RCC is not mentioned in the Bible, the only ones making the claim is the RCC, not much proof in support is it.

How much proof do you need?
Jesus said to call no religious teacher ‘Father”, yet that is exactly what your church requires you to call them.

How much proof do you need?
Setting people on fire is not very divine.

How much proof do you need?
Do you deny that the RCC has as much child molestation problems as the Scouts and Protestant churches?

How much proof do you need?
Catholic are always complaining about people complaining about the morals and conduct of the RCC, not exactly a spotless organisation.

How much proof do you need?

> Does God give promises and then renege on them?<
It is only the RCC that claims the RCC was set up Jesus and protected by God. The actions of the RCC prove it has nothing to do with God.

On the other hand, God made a promise to the Israelites and later rejected them when they adopted Pagan practices of other nations, and the RCC has done exactly the same thing.

How much proof do you need?

> One and only one faith can be representative of God’s [objective truth].<
And every other religion says exactly the same thing. Nothing makes your religion any different except for the power it had to burn and murder any opposition until the power of the people became more powerful and the RCC had to try and ‘live’ with it.

> Then we can talk about the slaughter of Catholics<
Yes, of course, back to the argument that the RCC is just as bad as Protestants. Not much of an argument to prove it is the only true church of God.

How is it that to argue that the RCC is just as bad as Protestants is in some way proof it is the only true church of God?

> We can extend this to show how it was predominantly Protestants who acted as Hitler’s henchmen<

Yes, just as bad as Catholics.
And that Hitler was a Catholic that was not excommunicated.

> You do remember that nearly as many Catholics died in Hitler's camps as did Jews<
Not because they were Catholic though.
You do remember that the Pope ordered Hitler to leave Jews alone that had converted to Catholicism.
That was a loving gesture from your leader, ‘Do what you like to Jews but leave the Jews that have converted to Catholicism.’ Mmm very divine indeed.

You seem to have an unfounded hatred for news programs. Just because “60 Minutes” keeps uncovering the terrible actions of the RCC so it is easy for people to know the truth, is no reason to hate it. You should welcome the attention; all publicity is good publicity. If it is wrong the RCC can be vindicated and it is all good news.

> And, our faith must hold belief in Christ’s commission of the Church, His appointment of its Vicar, and His pronouncement that that Church will prevail against the Gates of hell. This is because it is Scriptural TRUTH.<

Mmm yes, but which church, that is the question. It is only the RCC that claims it is this ‘church’.

The actions of the RCC prove it obviously is not.

The actions of the RCC prove it is just as bad as Protestants and Scouts clubs.

dwashbur

Apr 11, 2010, 03:57 PM

JoeT, say what you like about the unity of the RCC but one churches teaches different to the other. It, as usual is only the RCC which likes to claim that it is unified.
[snip]

*standard disclaimer* I am not Catholic, nor do I play one on television.

I've attended Catholic services in 3 different states, and have not seen what you describe. Could you give some details from your own observations, or some published accounts? You've got me curious.

JoeT777

Apr 11, 2010, 08:53 PM

JoeT, say what you like about the unity of the RCC but one church teaches different to the other. It, as usual is only the RCC which likes to claim that it is unified.

You did not give scripture proof of anything. I saw nothing of the word Catholic in your scriptures. So the only ones claiming that the scriptures refer to the RCC is only the RCC.
Ok, I’ll do it again
Peter is made ‘most equal’ among equals. The Church will protected against the gates of hell. The Keys (authority) is given to the Church:

Matt 16: 18-19 And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
That authority is reinforced:

Matt 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
Foretold in prophesy, refer to my post #287 https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/why-did-jesus-christ-establish-church-433985-29.html#post2310321 in this thread.

John the Baptist announced the coming of the Kingdom of God, John 1:29-31. Christ claimed to be the Messiah, Luke 4:21. He further claims these prophecies are fulfilled in Him, Luke 11:31, Christ is more revered than the Temple, Matthew 12:6. The Sabbath belongs to Christ, Luke 6:5. Christ demands faith in Him based on His Divinity, John 6:29. The entire theme of Matthew is Christ teaching the Kingdom of God which is established in Him, Gospel of Matthew. Christ establishes His Law in the following verses Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 13:17; 21:43; 24:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 60; 18:17). Christ reveals His doctrine in Matt 13:11.

And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. 2 And the names of the twelve Apostles are these…
Christ then Commissions them and the Church; unpleasant things happen to those who do not hear the words of the Church.

These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter not. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. Freely have you received, freely give. 9 Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses; 10 nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff; for the workman is worthy of his meat. 11 And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. 12 And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. 13 And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Where in the scriptures does it say the RCC was organized by the Apostles?
Order of the disciplines is ‘directed’ in 1 Corinthians 12:28; 16:1; Titus 1:5. Judicial 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 2:10.

Apostles and Bishops receive supernatural inspiration Acts 13:2; 15:23; 21:11; etc.

In the Epistles of St. Paul (Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus we see a hierarchal relationship between bishops and the Apostles. Timothy and Titus were sent as bishops to Ephesus and to Crete
It is clear from the Titus 1:5-7 that the term presbyter is a ‘Bishop.’ Presbyters form a corporate body in 1 Timothy 4:14 and govern the Church (Cf. 1 Timothy 3:5) wholse duty is to teach, 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9. This post of Bishop doesn’t depend on a supernatural gift, they should however be men of good character, 1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:5-9.

The faithful are to observe an “obedience of faith" Romans 1:5; 15:18 towards the ordained. Whether an angel or the ordained, the faithful are not to preach another doctrine, Galatians 1:8. This involves a claim to infallibility in the teaching of revealed truth.
As to the Apostles, we can take most of the book of Acts to show who and how to ordain priests and Bishops; appointment of presbyters Acts 14:22, injunction to the Thessalonians, 1 Thessalonians 5:12

>Why didn’t the Lutherans and the other Protestant Churches stop Hitler instead of cooperating with him?<
Because they are just as bad as the RCC, because the RCC is just as bad as the Protestants.

That’s reassuring.

JoeT

TUT317

Apr 11, 2010, 09:25 PM

Some, such as Thomas Cranmer (1550) along with the Church he fathered (not to mention John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, or Martin Luther) rationalized away obedience in faith taught by God’s Kingdom on earth (that is the Church). Instead they rationalized truth to “figurative speeches” requiring a loyalty to a prince of man instead of a Vicar of Christ. Thus, the will of God, the truth, becomes man’s will for God’s truth. In my opinion this is one of the greatest errors in Protestantism, theological and moral relativism; the subjugation of God's Will to the will of man, i.e., Protestantism.

JoeT

Hi Joe,

I don't want to seem to be nit-picking here but theological and moral relativism was not a Protestant invention. Relativism was discussed by Plato and his discussions included the famous Euthyphro Dilemma.

The subjugation of God's Will to the will of man has always been evident in Western thinking.

Does God command certain actions because it is morally right? (DIVINE COMMAND THEORY). Or, is it morally right so God commands it? (MORAL RELATIVISM).

As you are no doubt aware Aquinas addresses this problem. The debate is still very much alive after 2,000 years.

I would say that the subjugation of God's Will to the will of man i.e.. a long established philosophical tradition.

Regards

Tut

I Newton

Apr 12, 2010, 02:35 AM

Ok Joe T, forgive me but I cannot see the RCC mentioned in your “proof” by scripture.

Let’s look at them

Matt 16: 18-19
Mmm… nope.

Matt 18:18
Mmm… ‘fraid not.

John 1:29-31
No RCC there either.

Luke 4:21
Ahh… nope.

Luke 11:31
Hmm… na.

Matthew 12:6
Umm… okay, this is dragging on a little.

Are there maybe any scriptures you like that prove the RCC is the true church started by Jesus?

>That’s reassuring<
That’s reasoning? That’s it? That is what convinces you? Scriptures about Jesus and the apostles gives you the proof you need that that church was actually the RCC? Boy you are easily lead.

Well, here is some news for you, every other religion says exactly the same thing, and their proof is just as Umm … concrete as yours.

dwashbur

Apr 12, 2010, 08:32 AM

Are you actually asking for a verse that includes the words "Roman Catholic Church"? Just want to clarify here...

Ok Joe T, forgive me but I cannot see the RCC mentioned in your “proof” by scripture.

Let’s look at them

Matt 16: 18-19
Mmm… nope.

Matt 18:18
Mmm… ‘fraid not.

John 1:29-31
No RCC there either.

Luke 4:21
Ahh… nope.

Luke 11:31
Hmm… na.

Matthew 12:6
Umm… okay, this is dragging on a little.

Are there maybe any scriptures you like that prove the RCC is the true church started by Jesus?

>That’s reassuring<
That’s reasoning? That’s it? That is what convinces you? Scriptures about Jesus and the apostles gives you the proof you need that that church was actually the RCC? Boy you are easily lead.

Well, here is some news for you, every other religion says exactly the same thing, and their proof is just as Umm … concrete as yours.

I Newton

Apr 13, 2010, 02:07 PM

Joe said he had scriptural proof that the RCC was the real true church that was set up by Jesus and organised by the apostles.

All he has quoted is scriptures showing that "A" church was set up and claims that this church IS the RCC.

It is stupidity at at it's highest level to even imagine that the scriptures are proof in any way that the church spoken of is actually the RCC.

Nearly every other Christian religion claims exactly the same thing and quotes the very same scriptures, so Joe is only deluding himself if he thinks the scriptures he quoted is 'proof' of the authority given to the RCC.

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 02:25 PM

Joe said he had scriptural proof that the RCC was the real true church that was set up by Jesus and organised by the apostles.
I, a Protestant, will agree with Joe that the RCC grew out of the Early Church, but the Church that Jesus spoke of is all Christians.

Nearly every other Christian religion claims exactly the same thing
I disagree. None of the mainstream Protestant churches claim that they are the Early Church. Members of those churches do claim to be part of "the Church," the catholic (universal) Christian Church.

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 04:13 PM

I Newton
Joe did a GOOD job providing discussion and answers from Scripture tio back it up.
You have not.
You have provided no proofs just hearsay or your imagination and opinion.
So let is please see some proofs of what you say about the Catholic Church.
Thanks,
Fred

450donn

Apr 13, 2010, 07:23 PM

JoeT777

Apr 13, 2010, 08:48 PM

All he has quoted is scriptures showing that "A" church was set up and claims that this church IS the RCC.

Yes, 'A' Church; 'the' Church whose history intimately identifies it as one and the same 'Roman Catholic Church'. You might have missed the gist of my response; the Roman Catholic Church IS Christ's Kingdom. When a Roman Catholic reads scripture in part he is reading the history of Christendom, the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Christ's role is pivotal (obviously) in that He is the Messianic King. You do recall that Judaism was waiting for the Messianic King? This is a key point made very clear in scripture. Study what that means to a Jew of the day, they were literally waiting for an earthly Divine ruler (assuming they recognized Him). Christ trained his replacements for the Sanhedrin, the Twelve; you might say the old salt lost its savour (Cf. Mat 10:13). To members of the Sanhedrin Christ tells them that the because their service is unprofitable (Cf. Luke 17:10), the Kingdom will be given to other (Cf. Luke 17:21 Matt “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and … will give the vineyard to others.“ (Mark 12:9). He tells Jude, “I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.” (Matt 21:43).

What profoundly manifests itself in scripture concerning 'Church', i.e. the Kingdom of God, is that Christ commissions, ordains, and sets out a mission for his new Church to serve God, to yield fruits. Thus, in Acts and the epistles we see the organization of that Kingdom into a House of God. “And God indeed hath set some in the church;” A pecking order, an ordering of disciplines; “first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. ” (1 Cor 12:28). Furthermore, scripture show a hierarchal relationship when we see that Timothy and Titus are sent to be bishops over Ephesus and Crete, respectively. This was a Catholic 'authority' exercised before the word 'Catholic' was used to describe the Church. What equally important is that the faithful in Christ at that time were obedient in faith to the ordained. (Cf. Rom 1:5; 15:18, Galatians 1:8).

Yes, there is but one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 09:03 PM

Yes, there is but one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.
Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

dwashbur

Apr 13, 2010, 09:08 PM

Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

I don't really think that's a fair question. I have some problems with some of Joe's translation and/or interpretation, but expecting a specific name like that is a bit unreasonable. Obviously there would be development, and the name is just part of it. What it's called isn't really important; what matters is, does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 09:21 PM

I don't really think that's a fair question. I have some problems with some of Joe's translation and/or interpretation, but expecting a specific name like that is a bit unreasonable. Obviously there would be development, and the name is just part of it. What it's called isn't really important; what matters is, does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.
I accept what you say. Whilst you were writing, I was Googling around and learned from a number of sites both Catholic and not that "by the middle of the second century all the chief centres of Christianity were headed by bishops, a form of organization that remained universal until the Protestant Reformation." (Wikipedia) The Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, 2006, states, "The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable." This article describes the organization of the Early Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop

So can we say that's when the RCC became formally organized? Also, can we say before its formal organization, there was no RCC per se?

paraclete

Apr 13, 2010, 09:33 PM

Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

The word church is not nebulous, it means the called out ones, it means those who have listened to the message and embraced it. All that was ever asked was belief, all the rest is man's invention

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 09:37 PM

At First it was called just "The Church"
However soon after the Acts history tells us of others who called themselves a church. Those were not founded by the apostles.
So the word "Catholic" meaning universal was added to the name of The Church" to distinguish it from the late comers who were not teaching biblical truths.
That's real authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete

Apr 13, 2010, 09:39 PM

does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.

I think it ceased to be that representative in the fourth century when it became a state religion. It is easily forgotten that Jesus said you cannot serve God and money. The money came with the state and all the trappings of power. The Church that embrassed that was what became known as the RCC. It is easily forgotten that the word Roman in its title refers to the fact that it was the state church of the Roman empire

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 09:39 PM

The word church is not nebulous, it means the called out ones, it means those who have listened to the message and embraced it. All that was ever asked was belief, all the rest is man's invention
Okay. "Nebulous" wasn't a good word choice. Check my post just above regarding Early Church history and organization.

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 09:44 PM

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.
That's true authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 09:54 PM

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.

When was that, arcura?

I found this in Wikipedia: "The efficient organization of the Roman Empire became the template for the organisation of the church in the fourth century, particularly after Constantine's Edict of Milan. As the church moved from the shadows of privacy into the public forum it acquired land for churches, burials and clergy."

Before then, it had been independent congregations overseen by bishops. The center of power and authority over all the independent churches became Rome.

dwashbur

Apr 13, 2010, 09:56 PM

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.
That's true authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it had something to do with the bishop of Rome becoming established as pope? Or am I off base here?

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 09:58 PM

Wondergirl,
It was soon after the big split that the name Roman was officially added to the name.
Sorry I have forgotten the year.
You are a wonder for you wonder a lot and well.
I love that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 10:01 PM

Fred,
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it had something to do with the bishop of Rome becoming established as pope?
That's what I found in my Googling during the past hour.

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 10:06 PM

Wondergirl,
The first bishop of Rome was Peter.
Like the other apostles he was a Bishop and in his case the leader of The Church.
However that was not recognized by the Roman Government who were hell bent on stamping out the Christians.
But as Jesus promised, He would be with His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail upon it.
Peace abnd kindness,
Fred

JoeT777

Apr 13, 2010, 10:09 PM

It was in Peter’s Office, i.e. the Pope. There are a number of writings in antiquity, you might recall the several times I listed a dozen or so, where the primacy of Peter is recognized by the Bishops.

If each Bishop was an independent ‘prince,’ how then do we explain the 21 Ecumenical Councils; each one have bearing on our faith, each Ecumenical council is not formally accepted without confirmation of Peter’s Seat, i.e. the Pope. The following is a list of Ecumenical councils; there were also a number of lesser councils and synods which lacked the consensuses of the entire Church, and thus may not have been applicable to the entire Church or may require adoption by an Ecumenical council. Oh, yes. I forgot one; there was a council in Jerusalem which is outlined in Acts. It is obvious that Protestants can’t recognize these councils as anything other than a ‘gathering’ of Bishops. If they did, they’d need to recognize the authority of the Pope.

FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA, Year: 325
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Year: 381
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, Year: 431
FIRST COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, Year: 451
SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Year: 553
THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Years: 680-681
SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA, Year: 787
FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Year: 869
FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1123
SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1139
THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1179
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1215
FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS, Year: 1245
SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS, Year: 1274
COUNCIL OF VIENNE, Years: 1311-1313
COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE , Years: 1414-1418
COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE, Years: 1431-1439
FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL, Years: 1512-1517
COUNCIL OF TRENT, Years: 1545-1563
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Years: 1869-1870
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Years: 1962-1965

JoeT

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 10:16 PM

It was in Peter's Office, i.e. the Pope. There are a number of writings in antiquity, you might recall the several times I listed a dozen or so, where the primacy of Peter is recognized by the Bishops.
Back up the bus, Joe. What was going on with the Early Church between Jesus' resurrection and 325? Weren't there a number of independent congregations headed by bishops, and gradually large episcopacies were established in Alexandria and Athens and Rome?

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 10:33 PM

Wondergirl,
What went on was that all the bishops recognized Peter as the leader just as the bible and history so indicates.
Read the book On This Rock for a complete showing of Scripture and history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 10:38 PM

dwashbur

Apr 13, 2010, 10:56 PM

Wondergirl

Apr 13, 2010, 11:05 PM

Fred and Joe,
Something earlier than the fourth century would be nice. We know how things were by that time, but I haven't seen anything either from the New Testament or early writings such as the Apostolic Fathers to indicate that Peter was ever a "bishop" of anything, much less Rome. Paul indicates that James, not Peter, was the apparent leader of the earliest church in Jerusalem. Do you have a reference prior to, say, Eusebius (also fourth century) that clearly says otherwise?
I found this in Wikipedia -- "The writings of the Church Father Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD reflect a belief that Peter "founded and organised" the Church at Rome. However, Irenaeus was not the first to write of Peter's presence in the early Roman Church. Clement of Rome wrote in a letter to the Corinthians, c. 96."

Do you know about any of this, about Irenaeus and Clement? (I cut Church History -- stupid me! -- and can't remember anything that far back anyway.)

dwashbur

Apr 13, 2010, 11:41 PM

I found this in Wikipedia -- "The writings of the Church Father Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD reflect a belief that Peter "founded and organised" the Church at Rome. However, Irenaeus was not the first to write of Peter's presence in the early Roman Church. Clement of Rome wrote in a letter to the Corinthians, c. 96."

Do you know about any of this, about Irenaeus and Clement? (I cut Church History -- stupid me! -- and can't remember anything that far back anyway.)

I haven't spent any time with Irenaeus, but I don't remember anything in either of the Clement epistles (the second one isn't actually by Clement) about Peter being any kind of bishop of Rome. I believe one of them refers to his martyrdom in Rome, but that's all. I'll have to track down a good edition and check again; if you want to poke around yourself, Google books has several editions online (just make sure you go for an English one unless you can read Greek!).

arcura

Apr 13, 2010, 11:54 PM

Wondergirl,
Not that I know of except perhaps various encyclopedias.
But why go to a Ford dealer to find the truth about a Dodge car?
Go to the source that has all of the data and authentic historical documents to back it up.
That's what I did after basing the Catholic Church for years.
I went to the largest Christian library in the world for information and found that I had been mislead for many years.
It's bed time for me now.
Have a great peaceful sleep.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete

Apr 14, 2010, 06:00 AM

Athos

Apr 14, 2010, 08:23 AM

Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

The RCC is not explicitly named because the term did not exist then.

I don't really think that's a fair question. I have some problems with some of Joe's translation and/or interpretation, but expecting a specific name like that is a bit unreasonable. Obviously there would be development, and the name is just part of it. What it's called isn't really important; what matters is, does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.

Correct.

The Church that embrassed that was what became known as the RCC. It is easily forgotten that the word Roman in its title refers to the fact that it was the state church of the Roman empire

The word "Roman" in the RCC has nothing to do with the Roman Empire. See below - the answer to Arcura explaining its derivation.

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.
That's true authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Sorry, arcura, but that is not "true, authentic history". The word "Roman" was added to the Catholic Church in early 17th century England. The Reformation English considered themselves (Anglicans) the true Catholic Church. The Church they replaced was called "Papist, Romish, or Popish".

The usage was intended to be insulting. For diplomatic reasons, they changed the title to "Roman Catholic Church" to distinguish it from the Anglican Catholic Church. Still slightly insulting, but less so. Over time, the "original" Catholics accepted the title, and use it today in English-speaking countries.

NOTE: It is important to understand that the official title is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. This latter usage is found ONLY in English-speaking countries. In other languages, and officially, it is called simply the Catholic Church.

I hope this has been helpful. The discussion should not get bogged down in an irrelevant distraction regarding the name of the Catholic Church.

Wondergirl

Apr 14, 2010, 09:11 AM

The RCC is not explicitly named because the term did not exist then... The discussion should not get bogged down in an irrelevant distraction regarding the name of the Catholic Church.
That wasn't what I was trying to find out. (And I am not being adversarial.) I'm trying to find out exactly when the Early Church organized itself into the Catholic Church, the "flowing into" I mentioned earlier in this thread. The very act of becoming and being organized is probably my answer.

For diplomatic reasons, they changed the title to "Roman Catholic Church" to distinguish it from the Anglican Catholic Church.
I had always understood that the "Roman" part of the Church's name was added much earlier when its center became Rome.

Athos

Apr 14, 2010, 09:19 AM

I had always understood that the "Roman" part of the Church's name was added much earlier when its center became Rome.

Your understanding was incorrect. "Roman" was added as I indicated in my post.

Wondergirl

Apr 14, 2010, 09:25 AM

Your understanding was incorrect. "Roman" was added as I indicated in my post.
Thank you for your explanation.

Athos

Apr 14, 2010, 09:27 AM

Thank you for your explanation.

You are welcome.

Wondergirl

Apr 14, 2010, 09:32 AM

You are welcome.
Then, one can always find something like this on WikiAnswers: "after the death of christ the 12 dissipels continued to represent the core of christianity, each was sent to a different area to be the local spiritual leader. one was sent to rome and when the roman empire turned to christianity he gained lots of political power eventually proclayming himself "the pope" and claiming he was infalluble. that was the begining on roman catholics."

*sigh*

dwashbur

Apr 14, 2010, 09:33 AM

Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.

dwashbur

Apr 14, 2010, 09:35 AM

Then, then one can always find something like this on WikiAnswers: "after the death of christ the 12 dissipels continued to represent the core of christianity, each was sent to a different area to be the local spiritual leader. one was sent to rome and when the roman empire turned to christianity he gained lots of political power eventually proclayming himself "the pope" and claiming he was infalluble. that was the begining on roman catholics."

*sigh*

Wow. Somebuddy over their nedes to lern how to speel.

Athos

Apr 14, 2010, 10:16 AM

Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.

Not a single source with each detail, but here's a start --

Oxford English Dictionary under "Roman Catholic" describes the diplomatic details causing the term to come into use, and attests the earliest use as of 1605.

Vatican II documents can be found on-line and you will not find a single instance of the phrase - not proof, but interesting.

There are on-line Catholic Encylopedias which I'm sure will reward a diligent search. (I'll do this myself later today, and will pass on any info I find).

Of course, your local library has many tomes on Catholic Church history, and the English Reformation.

JoeT777

Apr 14, 2010, 06:47 PM

Back up the bus, Joe. What was going on with the Early Church between Jesus' resurrection and 325?

Sure. You expect me to believe that once you close the bible, God can no longer reveal His truth to us? And, what better vehicle to use then HIS Church? Who would refuse such a thing? To 'back up the bus' is exactly what the so-called reformers did.

Weren't there a number of independent congregations headed by bishops, and gradually large episcopacies were established in Alexandria and Athens and Rome?

Synods, Patriarchal or National Councils, and Diocesan synods could affect as few as one more Diocese. And each of these falls into one of three categories, concilia plenaria, universalia, or generalia . Some synods were held to voice various opinions over theological views such as the Holy Trinity. Some simply regarded the corporate Church, whether to send an envoy or something like that. But, in order to meet the rank of “Ecumenical Councils” they needed to be recognized by the Pope before they became a matter of faith. If you're interested the following link explains it in more detail: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: General Councils (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm)

JoeT

Wondergirl

Apr 14, 2010, 06:51 PM

Sure. You expect me to belief that once you close the bible, God can no longer reveal His truth to us?
Joe, Joe, Joe. I was on YOUR side, trying to help you fine-tune it all.

JoeT777

Apr 14, 2010, 07:24 PM

Lumen Gentium, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church never uses the term “Roman Catholic Church.”

At best it uses the term Catholic Church, capitalizing the ‘C’ of Catholic

I’ve always heard that ‘Roman Catholic Church’ didn’t come about until after the Protestant schism. Since the early fathers, it was generally referred to as the Church of Christ. And, that’s exactly how Lumen Gentium refers to the Chruch, i.e.. “The Church of Christ”

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity...

Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the Church of God. So likewise the new Israel which while living in this present age goes in search of a future and abiding city is called the Church of Christ. For He has bought it for Himself with His blood, has filled it with His Spirit and provided it with those means which befit it as a visible and social union. God gathered together as one all those who in faith look upon Jesus as the author of salvation and the source of unity and peace, and established them as the Church that for each and all it may be the visible sacrament of this saving unity. While it transcends all limits of time and confines of race, the Church is destined to extend to all regions of the earth and so enters into the history of mankind. Moving forward through trial and tribulation, the Church is strengthened by the power of God's grace, which was promised to her by the Lord, so that in the weakness of the flesh she may not waver from perfect fidelity, but remain a bride worthy of her Lord, and moved by the Holy Spirit may never cease to renew herself, until through the Cross she arrives at the light which knows no setting. (Emphasis is mine)
Cf. Dogmatische Konstitution über die Kirche LUMEN GENTUIM (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_ge.html)

The proper name of the Roman Catholic Church is “The Church of Christ.” Her people are called the “people of God.”

JoeT

JoeT777

Apr 14, 2010, 07:26 PM

Joe, Joe, Joe. I was on YOUR side, trying to help you fine-tune it all.

Oops; did I step in it again?

arcura

Apr 14, 2010, 10:49 PM

paraclete

Apr 15, 2010, 02:32 AM

The name of The Church IS in the Bible. It is called The Church.
Later the name was changed. It is STILL The Church.
For those who continue to say that the bible does not support the idea that the Catholic Church is The Church are expressing what they believe or think or wish but NOT what the bible says.
Joe has done a marvelous job explaining and showing what the bible says about The Church in the old and new Testaments.
Either accept what he has provided or don't.
It's a person's own self to decide what to believe or not.
I once believed the Catholic Church was very wrong and talked against it for years but after much time and struggling and study I change my mind. Though I had help from various people to open my mind and eyes it was I who made the decision to change what I believed.
I could have decided not to.
The same goes for all here, believe as you wish or want.
It will not change the facts at all.:):):)

Fred you keep telling us you have found the one true church but the reality is that tradition doesn't make it so. God said long ago he wanted those who worshiped him in spirit and in truth, so the church comprises those who do so. We don't need your help to see the truth, God gave us his Holy Spirit for that purpose, and you shouldn't have needed the help of others to see the truth. What I know is this; the church is a New Testament concept and that the church is people following Christ not an institution with a set of doctrines it has promulated for it's own purposes

classyT

Apr 15, 2010, 05:23 AM

The Apostle Paul clearly difines the body of Christ.. or the church. IT AIN't a man made institution. It is simply all believers and followers of Christ.

Athos

Apr 15, 2010, 06:50 AM

Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.

Here are a few ---

From The Catholic Answer - 1996

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm)

From The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1911

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm)
This one is quite detailed.

dwashbur

Apr 15, 2010, 09:21 AM

Here are a few ---

from The Catholic Answer - 1996

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm)

from The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1911

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm)
This one is quite detailed.

I'm in the midst of moving right now, but I'll try to check them out as soon as I can. Thanks!

arcura

Apr 15, 2010, 10:04 PM

dwashbur, I do believe what those links say.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Athos

Apr 18, 2010, 09:05 AM

Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.

Dwash - I provided the sources you requested several days ago, and you replied that you would look at them. Since you are posting, I assume you've had the time to look at them - they take at most several minutes.

Since I went to the effort, I think it only a matter of courtesy that you acknowledge reading the sources, and agree or rebut.

dwashbur

Apr 18, 2010, 09:18 AM

Dwash - I provided the sources you requested several days ago, and you replied that you would look at them. Since you are posting, I assume you've had the time to look at them - they take at most several minutes.

Since I went to the effort, I think it only a matter of courtesy that you acknowledge reading the sources, and agree or rebut.

As I said, I'm in the midst of moving, and my Internet connection is, um, flaky at best. Today should be the last big day of moving stuff, so I'm hoping to get to them tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

dwashbur

Apr 22, 2010, 10:39 AM

Here are a few ---

From The Catholic Answer - 1996

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm)

Taking a break from moving after a solid week of doing most of it by myself http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/crybaby2.gif

This is very informative. He's wrong about one thing: "The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself." Actually, the disciples called themselves Christians very early on; as he says, the term originated in Antioch, probably as a derogatory term that followers of Christ adopted and wore with pride. In Acts 26:28 Agrippa is very familiar with the term, and obviously understands it to mean people who follow Jesus, while Peter in 1 Pet 4:16 says that suffering as a Christian is a good thing. If he means the term was never applied as an official institutional title in the New Testament, then he's technically correct, because there was no institution in New Testament times. 98% of the use of the term "church" in the New Testament refers to individual local congregations, and there was no over-arching organization. That didn't happen until much later.

The quote of Ignatius is questionable: "He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use. "

His quote is actually wrong: it reads "Where JESUS CHRIST is," not "where the bishop is." This is a clue to what Ignatius meant.

In Ignatius' time the word meant "universal." It hadn't come to be used in any kind of technical or label sense yet. What Ignatius is saying is, anyplace where Jesus is worshiped, the church (in the universal sense of all believers) is there; anybody who worships him anywhere is part of His body.

There's a similar problem with the quote about the Martyrdom of Polycarp. While his dates for Polycarp are okay, the document itself was actually written by Irenaeus, somewhere between 50 and 100 years later. The sentence in question (in chapter 8 if anybody wants to look it up) adds the phrase "according to the inhabited world" (a literal translation of the Greek) which indicates he's talking about any and all believers, and hence the word "catholic" again is not an institutional designation.

By the by, anybody who wants to check out these quotes can find the texts of these writings, both in their original Greek and in several English translations, at www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org) and search for Apostolic Fathers.

Curiously enough, Irenaeus himself at the beginning of the document addresses it to two different "churches," which shows that the word was used in two different ways: a specific congregation, and all believers wherever they might be scattered. But once again, there's no indication of any kind of institutional use of the term "catholic." It was a common Greek word that meant "universal." The article says this:
The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

That's questionable at best. It's more likely he was speaking of the "universal" church as opposed to non-believers. But I can let that pass.

from The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1911

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm)
This one is quite detailed.

This one is extremely informative. Thank you.

arcura

Apr 22, 2010, 11:40 PM

dwashbur,
Thanks for that information and your opinion on it.
It helps me understand you and your thinking.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

dwashbur

Apr 23, 2010, 11:06 AM

dwashbur,
Thanks for that information and your opinion on it.
It helps me understand you and your thinking.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I'm less interested in your understanding of me and my thinking than I am in your understanding of the evidence in question, but thanks ;)

paraclete

Apr 23, 2010, 03:51 PM

I'm less interested in your understanding of me and my thinking than I am in your understanding of the evidence in question, but thanks ;)

Don't worry you aren't going to get anything out of him, the only opinion he has is published by the RCC

dwashbur

Apr 23, 2010, 04:24 PM

Don't worry you arn't going to get anything out of him, the only opinion he has is published by the RCC

Naw, he's just a man of few words. I'm going to start calling him BB, as in BB King (that's a compliment, by the way; he's one of my guitar heroes).

arcura

Apr 23, 2010, 09:45 PM

dwashbur,
I am trying to understand.
OK?
Fred

dwashbur

Apr 23, 2010, 10:28 PM

dwashbur,
I am trying to understand.
OK?
Fred

How can I help?

And is it okay if I continue to call you BB? ;)

Athos

Apr 23, 2010, 11:49 PM

Taking a break from moving after a solid week of doing most of it by myself http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/crybaby2.gif

This is very informative. He's wrong about one thing: "The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself." Actually, the disciples called themselves Christians very early on; as he says, the term originated in Antioch, probably as a derogatory term that followers of Christ adopted and wore with pride. In Acts 26:28 Agrippa is very familiar with the term, and obviously understands it to mean people who follow Jesus, while Peter in 1 Pet 4:16 says that suffering as a Christian is a good thing. If he means the term was never applied as an official institutional title in the New Testament, then he's technically correct, because there was no institution in New Testament times. 98% of the use of the term "church" in the New Testament refers to individual local congregations, and there was no over-arching organization. That didn't happen until much later.

The quote of Ignatius is questionable: "He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use. "

His quote is actually wrong: it reads "Where JESUS CHRIST is," not "where the bishop is." This is a clue to what Ignatius meant.

In Ignatius' time the word meant "universal." It hadn't come to be used in any kind of technical or label sense yet. What Ignatius is saying is, anyplace where Jesus is worshiped, the church (in the universal sense of all believers) is there; anybody who worships him anywhere is part of His body.

There's a similar problem with the quote about the Martyrdom of Polycarp. While his dates for Polycarp are okay, the document itself was actually written by Irenaeus, somewhere between 50 and 100 years later. The sentence in question (in chapter 8 if anybody wants to look it up) adds the phrase "according to the inhabited world" (a literal translation of the Greek) which indicates he's talking about any and all believers, and hence the word "catholic" again is not an institutional designation.

By the by, anybody who wants to check out these quotes can find the texts of these writings, both in their original Greek and in several English translations, at www.ccel.org (http://www.ccel.org) and search for Apostolic Fathers.

That's questionable at best. It's more likely he was speaking of the "universal" church as opposed to non-believers. But I can let that pass.

This one is extremely informative. Thank you.

I read your lengthy opinion about the origin of the word "Catholic", but it didn't have anything to do with the topic under discussion.

The links I posted referred to the use of the word "Roman" being used as part of the Roman Catholic Church. The use of the word "Roman" was the topic being discussed, not "Catholic".

I trust the references have satisfied your curiosity and that you now understand how "Roman" came to be added.

dwashbur

Apr 24, 2010, 10:26 AM

I read your lengthy opinion about the origin of the word "Catholic", but it didn't have anything to do with the topic under discussion.

The links I posted referred to the use of the word "Roman" being used as part of the Roman Catholic Church. The use of the word "Roman" was the topic being discussed, not "Catholic".

I trust the references have satisfied your curiosity and that you now understand how "Roman" came to be added.

I wasn't actually the one who asked that, but sure, I understand.

Athos

Apr 24, 2010, 10:39 AM

I wasn't actually the one who asked that, but sure, I understand.

Actually, you were. You asked for my sources. Here's your post -

Apr 14, 2010, 08:33 AM #333
dwashbur

Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.

Glad to help out.

dwashbur

Apr 24, 2010, 10:59 AM

Actually, you were. You asked for my sources. Here's your post -

Apr 14, 2010, 08:33 AM #333
dwashbur

Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.

Glad to help out.

OK. I meant I wasn't the one who originally asked the question, but it's all good.

JoeT777

Apr 24, 2010, 09:25 PM

I don't do Greek, I can only relate to the Greek alphabet in form of various mathematical algorithms; and then it only relates to a modeled reality. But, when necessary I can always skin a cat other ways – you might say when Al Gore and I invented the internet; I had an ulterior motive - other than raising up oceans and emptying pockets with a single leap of subjectivism.

So, in the way of an experiment I crunched a few numbers, so to speak, by taking St. Ignatius', Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, (circa 107 A.D.) and compare it with a digital translation. Then I could compare it with Alexander Roberts's , 'Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. as found at New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm>. How much difference would I find in 'Catholic' renditions?

The Greek (CCL - Ignatius-Smyrnaeans (http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-smyrnaeans.htm)):

1. a. Πάντες τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερἰῳ ὡς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις. τοὺς δὲ διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε ὡς θεοῦ ἐντολήν. μηδεὶς χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ ἐπίσοπον οὖσα ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ.

Literal translation (word for word – Google Translation):

1. b. Son ἐπισκόπῳ follow all things, as Jesus Christ πατρί son and son πρεσβυτερἰῳ And as per apostolois. But his deacons as God ἐντρέπεσθε ἐντολήν. Let no one village that πρασσέτω bishop of belonging to the Church. ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, or in whom had been the ἐπίσοπον if he ἐπιτρέψῃ.

Common Translation found in Catholic catalogs:

1. c. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

**************************************

The Greek (CCL Ignatius-Smyrnaeans (http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-smyrnaeans.htm)):

2. a. ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἤτω, ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ῇ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν· ἀλλ' ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάσῃ, τοῦτο καὶ τῷ θεῷ εὐάρεστον, ἵνα ἀσφαλὲς ᾖ καὶ βέβαιον πᾶν ὃ πράσσετε.

Common Translation found in Catholic catalogs:

2. b. where if φανῇ son Bishop, where the multitude ito, where if osper ῇ Jesus Christ, where the Catholic church. essential but do not speak telling the village nor bishop nor βαπτίζειν do in love; but he that if he δοκιμάσῃ, purpose and εὐάρεστον god, that he should last place of security and the utmost βέβαιον πράσσετε.

Common Translation found in Catholic catalogs:

2. c. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

We find the 'Google' translation sufficiently telling to surmise that the Catholic rendition is correct.

Every digital translator I run gives the same answer: “there is the Catholic Church”. The Introductory note to the Epistles of Ignatius (pages 45-46) of Philip Schaff's in “The Apostolic Fathers with Justin” represents schaff's own Protestant prejudices. They lean on a very controversial position to prove a point – in short it's easy to see he is supporting the Lutheran view; consequently it's my opinion that much scrutiny is warranted in his 'elucidations'. But, be that as it may; for the most part I've run across very few such controversies with Schaff's work; not that I'd know if they slapped me in the face.

But, being ignorant in ancient Greek (or any other Greek) I think I'll continue to keep my nose in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

JoeT

P.S. Did you know that the Catholic Church has a tradition that St. Ignatius was the child who was taken up in Christ's arms described in Mark 9:35.

dwashbur

Apr 24, 2010, 10:14 PM

I don’t do Greek, I can only relate to the Greek alphabet in form of various mathematical algorithms;

We're bookends, then; I do Greek quite well, but advanced math is way beyond my meager powers of comprehension.

Every digital translator I run gives the same answer: “there is the Catholic Church”. The Introductory note to the Epistles of Ignatius (pages 45-46) of Philip Schaff’s in “The Apostolic Fathers with Justin” represents schaff’s own Protestant prejudices. They lean on a very controversial position to prove a point – in short it’s easy to see he is supporting the Lutheran view; consequently it’s my opinion that much scrutiny is warranted in his ‘elucidations’. But, be that as it may; for the most part I’ve run across very few such controversies with Schaff’s work; not that I'd know if they slapped me in the face.

I can't seem to find the Schaff volume in Google books or ccel; do you have a link? What did he say?

But, being ignorant in ancient Greek (or any other Greek) I think I’ll continue to keep my nose in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Go for it; I just suggest some other stuff too ;)

P.S. Did you know that the Catholic Church has a tradition that St. Ignatius was the child who was taken up in Christ’s arms described in Mark 9:35.

I did not know that. Wouldn't that be something cool to take to your martyrdom??

JoeT777

Apr 24, 2010, 10:25 PM

I can't seem to find the Schaff volume in google books or ccel; do you have a link? What did he say?

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html)

dwashbur

Apr 24, 2010, 10:44 PM

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html)

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

Apr 24, 2010, 11:11 PM

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

I Newton

Apr 25, 2010, 05:40 AM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 10:31 AM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 11:08 AM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 01:37 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 01:56 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 02:05 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 02:39 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 02:41 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 04:12 PM

dwashbur

Apr 25, 2010, 04:36 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 05:17 PM

... 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

Apr 25, 2010, 07:11 PM

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

Apr 25, 2010, 09:10 PM

Thanks much for those recent posts.
Fred

TUT317

Apr 25, 2010, 09:18 PM

JoeT777

Apr 25, 2010, 10:18 PM

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm)

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

Apr 26, 2010, 01:42 AM

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm)

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

Apr 26, 2010, 03:33 PM

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism)

Subjectivism: Subjectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism)

Dualism: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dualism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05169a.htm)

Gnosticism: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gnosticism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm)