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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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!).

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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

---

Fred if you ask a Dodge dealer he is going to tell you his car is better than a Ford. To get an objective opinion about each you need to ask for an unbiased opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

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

---

Thank you for your explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Thank you for your explanation.

---

You are welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

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*

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

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.

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

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

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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

---

Oops; did I step in it again?

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.:):):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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