 |
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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Go to the source that has all of the data and authentic historical documents to back it up.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 opinionQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The RCC is not explicitly named because the term did not exist then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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 paraclete
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
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:
Originally Posted by Athos
I had always understood that the "Roman" part of the Church's name was added much earlier when its center became Rome.Quote:
For diplomatic reasons, they changed the title to "Roman Catholic Church" to distinguish it from the Anglican Catholic Church.
Your understanding was incorrect. "Roman" was added as I indicated in my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Thank you for your explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
You are welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
*sigh*
Athos,
Do you have a source for that info? I'd like to dig deeper.
Wow. Somebuddy over their nedes to lern how to speel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Not a single source with each detail, but here's a start --Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
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
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 CouncilsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JoeT
Joe, Joe, Joe. I was on YOUR side, trying to help you fine-tune it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
Oops; did I step in it again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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 purposesQuote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
Here are a few ---Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
From The Catholic Answer - 1996
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
From The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1911
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catholic
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
dwashbur, I do believe what those links say.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Taking a break from moving after a solid week of doing most of it by myself http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/crybaby2.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
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 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.Quote:
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.
This one is extremely informative. Thank you.Quote:
from The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1911
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Roman Catholic
This one is quite detailed.
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Don't worry you aren't going to get anything out of him, the only opinion he has is published by the RCCQuote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
dwashbur,
I am trying to understand.
OK?
Fred
How can I help?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
And is it okay if I continue to call you BB? ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Actually, you were. You asked for my sources. Here's your post -Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
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):
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):
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.
We're bookends, then; I do Greek quite well, but advanced math is way beyond my meager powers of comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I can't seem to find the Schaff volume in Google books or ccel; do you have a link? What did he say?Quote:
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.
Go for it; I just suggest some other stuff too ;)Quote:
But, being ignorant in ancient Greek (or any other Greek) I think I’ll continue to keep my nose in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I did not know that. Wouldn't that be something cool to take to your martyrdom??Quote:
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.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal LibraryQuote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:37 AM. |