Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Post # 86, Julian 658 said : “ There is ample evidence that there was a Catholic Church as early as 107 AD. “
The early Judeo-Christians also described the assembly (εκκλεσια) as an eternal principle that existed before the creation. However, neither use of the word καθολικοσ / Catholic, was a reference to the assembly that became the “Roman Catholic Church”. Καθολικοσ was a secular word to refer to any “general” principle and not particularly a “religious word”. LOOK at Ignatius in the Greek. Καθολικοσ is used by him as an adjective to the word for Church, NOT as a noun, such as the later Roman Catholic Church became.
“ I wanted to add a bit of period-appropriate data regarding the attempt to apply Ignatius' use of the word καθολικοσ / Catholic, to an organization that did not yet exist in this early date (i.e. approx 100 a.d.) . My point in adding this data is to make very clear that this adjective applied to many things having a "general" or "universal" nature, and that in approx 100 a.d., this adjective was not a noun that applied as a name of an organization that did not, as yet exist. At this early period, within perhaps just 50 years or so of the death of the last apostle, JOHN, the Roman Catholic Church as a pre-eminent, dominant political/religious/and financial institution did not yet exist. The Roman congregation, in its early stages, was a single congregation among many.
καθολικοςwas not a noun, but it was an adjective meaning “general” or “universal” . Lists from Moulton and Milligan have given us multiple examples from inscriptions, papyri, and other textual sources where such usage occurred.
For examples : An inscription In the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 335:6 shows this specific use even in 6 b.c. In Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS), Dittenberger gave us the example from approx. one a.d. of a Judge using καθολικον in a judgement.
In Agyptische Urkunden in berlin another legal example of the use of καθολικον was used in the same way as I described. It was written in 135 a.d. and it begins “υπερεθεμην το νυν πραγμα, επι καθολικον ην…” (I have delayed the present matter, since it was of general (“καθολικον”) interest.”
The title Καθολικος was applied to the chief of the “general department of finance”. For example the Onchrynchus Papyri example 1204 (from a.d. 299) mentions “…the most honorable catholicus Pomponius Domnus” (...τον κυριον μου τον διασημοτατον καθολικον πομπωνιον δομνον...”) There are other examples from the London Papyri (a.d. 246), Th. Reinachs provides another example from the group of Papyri named after his him, as does another OGIS example from the end of the 3rd century a.d.
Other general rulers came under the same titles of κατολικος. For example, in honor of the prytanis, the Onchrychus Papyri says “…ευτυχως τω καθολικω...” which is rendered “prosperity to our ‘leader’ / ‘καθολικω’ “. καθολικοσ even applies in this group of Papyri (1663:15) for a subordinate official having some general authority.
The point is that the adjective “Katholic” in 107, had nothing to do with the noun “Katholic” used in later centuries to describe the church created by the Romans.
JESUS MAY HAVE GIVEN PETER AUTHORITY, BUT PETER NEVER GAVE ROME HIS AUTHORITY
It doesn't matter what authority Peter did or did not have since, historically, he never gave these keys or authority to the Roman congregation.
For any of your claims to have relevance, you are going to have to make this connection at some point.
Historically, this is something the Romans have never done. Yes, they created the pseudo-clementine letters, but very early on, they were seen as counterfeits from a different century than which they claimed and were an embarrassment to the Catholic Claim since they were at once recognized as both counterfeit and they revealed the use of immoral and deceitfulness as a tool to attempt to claim power that the organization never obtained.
Since you are repeating this claim in this thread, we might as well re-visit my response to this claim from another thread as follows :
I understand why you view the word καθολικοσ as used by Bishop Ignatius in 100 a.d. as referring to the Roman Catholic Church and I do not blame you for resisting any historical correction on this point. I wish you could accept my attempt to make what I think is a simple historical correction that the specific use of the word "καθολικος", in 100 a.d. did not apply to the organization of later centuries that became known as the Roman Catholic Church was accepted.
I think that a bit more information can make even more clear why the word καθολικος used by Ignatius in 100 a.d. did not apply to the later Roman Christian Movement that became the Roman Catholic Church besides the fact that the Roman Catholic Church as we know it, did not exist at the time Ignatius was speaking. Perhaps however, we can discuss these issues and you can make your point during these discussions. If you end up still disagreeing, I will understand. I am hoping other posters are able to see what I think are reasons why the assembly/εκκλησια Ignatius was referring to was not the Roman Catholic Church of later centuries.
Firstly, the Original εκκλνσια DID have apostolic authority, whereas the later Roman Christian Movement’s organization never, historically, gained the apostolic authority it claimed.
Secondly, the church Ignatius was referring to, that is, the Original Assembly/εκκλνσια/Church of Jesus Christ was quite a different organization than the Roman Christian movement’s organization.
Thirdly, the base Characteristics of the Original εκκηεσια, had different goals in many ways; and the goals and methods of accomplishing those goals were substantially different. The Original church’s administration was different than the administration of the Roman Christian Movements administration in many fundamental ways. The Original εκκληεσια’s doctrines originating from apostles and prophets were different than the later man-made doctrines of the Roman Religious movements Theologian-derived theological doctrines. there are other issues, but I think these points are the main ones.
Perhaps I can give an initial overview on these points and then return later with more information in order to try to substantiate my claim that the use of the word καθολικος by Ignatius in approx. 100 a.d. was not used in specific reference to the Roman Religious movement which became the Roman Catholic Church in later centuries.
The εκκλησια/Assembly of the original Christian Movement established at the time of Jesus’ ministry was not the same organized εκκλησια that came out of the Roman Movement in say, the 4th century (or whenever this organization became recognizable as a specific “church” having its basic mature characteristics).
1) The Apostle Peter was never, historically, a standing Bishop of the Roman Congregation
Historians have known for many, many years, that historically, the Apostle Peter never served as a standing bishop to the congregation in Rome, nor did he give apostolic power to any subsequent bishop of the Roman Congregation.
Eusebius, and several other historical texts, indicate that Linus, NOT peter, was the first Bishop to the Roman congregation, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus. Even the concept that Peter would give the keys over the kingdom to a relatively unknown man Linus, is unusual and the claim was made necessary by political motives rather than authentic religious precedence. The claim that Peter was the “first Bishop of Rome” who somehow transferred the keys given him by Christ to a relatively unknown and obscure man (Linus) was never claimed in the earliest periods, but instead was a “back claim” made in later years.
Historically, Linus never announces that he has been given this fantastic power from Peter. There are no period appropriate records indicating this happened. No one at the time tells anyone. No one hears about it nor understands that it happened no one writes about it. No extant Christian diary mentions this authority. No early Christian psalm celebrates this authority. No early Christian commentary teaches this authority was given. No apostolic father knows anything about such authority being given. All textual descriptions are made in the next century as "back claims".
2) THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT LACKED THE SAME PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY IT CLAIMED OTHER CHRISTIAN MOVMENTS LACKED.
Since Historically, Peter never was a standing Bishop of Rome and never, historically, gave his keys and apostolic level authority to a Roman Bishop, the Roman Christian Movement was in the same situation as all other Christian congregations after the death of authentic Apostles and Prophets. The administrative authority given the leaders of the Catholic Movement was not “καθολικ” or “universal” in any sense as was the administrative religious authority in the authentic and original Christian Religious Movement.
3) THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT IN MANY WAYS
The historical misconception that the Roman Catholics church taught the earliest Judeo-Roman traditions and doctrines breaks down among historians :
The Roman Christian movement changed many of the earliest traditions it had acquired from the Original Christian Movement.
The Roman Christian movement adopted some traditions that were entirely new and NOT original to early Judeo-Christianity
The Original Christian Movement held traditions which the later Roman Christian movement rejected and subsequently, no longer taught at all and thus are “lost” in detail and substance to later evolutions of the Roman Christian Movement.
Ecclesiastical leadership was different in type and character in the Roman Christian Movement when compared to the Original Christian movement.
The source of doctrines and their development in the Roman Christian Movement was different than that of the Original Christian Movement.
The Roman Christian Movement developed their own distinct manner of ecclesiastical administration using the same names of offices as the early Christian Movement Used. Though the names were the same, the offices and administrative characteristics were not the same.
4) THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT TO POLITICAL/MILITARY/ECONOMICAL PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS
The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. Thus, there was a time when other cities in Christendom had pre-eminence (e.g. Rome, Antioch, etc.) and a time when Rome wanted pre-eminence. Rome could not claim religious pre-eminence based on Prima-sedes, or being the oldest bishopric, nor due to apostolic origins (other cities held primacy there as well); nor upon many other characteristics. It is inside this political dilemma that one sees the origin of the claim for authority Rome never actually had. This is the reason existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence and New texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.
The Roman Christian movement engaged in a Political fight for power and prominence that would not have characterized the authentic and original Christian movementWhen the “rank of churches became determined by the prominence of cities as civil capitals,” it was inevitable that clashes between the rivals for prominence would take place.
One saw increasingly political characteristics imbue the elections of the Bishop of Rome that did not characterize Bishoprics in the original Christian movement. One saw a characteristic of desires and goals to the accumulation of political / military power and wealth and influence that did not characterize the Early Christian Movement.
As power accrued in the leadership of the Roman Religious movement, one saw the almost immediate tendency to abuse power for the gain of property; for the increase in membership, and for the oppression of those unwilling to confirm. One need only review the early council canons to see the decisions were corrupted in ways that the original Christian movement had never been corrupted.
The nature of the office of Bishop in the Roman Religious Movement was different of a Bishop in the original movement (though the Roman movement used the same name for the office they created). It creates the same confusion as misuse of the word καθολικος.
I believe that there are reasons for the Roman Christian Movements' wonderful rise to pre-eminence that also demonstrate the difference between the Roman movement and the original Christian Movement. For examples:
The Romans were “Politically fortunate” since their religious movements spread was augmented by “politics of the age” in a manner that the original church could not; would not have been able to take advantage of. The Roman Christian movement was spread by active and aggressive missionary activities which, I think was similar to the original movement in many ways, but was contaminated by politico-economic considerations that did not contaminate the original Christian movement to the same degree. The Roman Christian Movement engaged in the Limitation and suppression of competing Christian messages in a manner characteristically different than the original Christian movement would have done (for example: Inquisitions, etc.).
5) A last bit of miscellaneous History
I DO think that the Roman Christian Religious Movement’s adoption of CATHOLIC as a NOUN (i.e. their name) is perfectly fine and it was even an advertising coup to have done so in early ages. (Today, most individuals no longer understand the linguistic connection.)
Regarding Roman Catholic Historical Misconceptions and their effect on any accurate historical conversations:
All of us have historical misconceptions (myself included). I think two major Roman Catholic historical misconceptions seem to underlie almost all of their historical assumptions; their historical speculations and their historical claims in the entire thread. Until Roman Catholics can overcome these misconceptions, most of their claims in the entire thread will not become credible or constructive nor can they be applied to authentic history.
#1 : Roman Catholics were taught the historical misconception that they were #1 the “first” or “original” Christian congregation from which others split and that they thus, still teach “original” doctrines.
#2: Roman Catholics were taught that their Bishops/Popes somehow received religious Authority of apostleship from the Apostle Peter and so they have more religious authority than other Christianities.
If one corrects these two misconceptions then all other claims the Roman Catholics make are placed into a more accurate context. If one does not correct for these two underlying misconceptions, then few historical conversations which use these misconceptions as their basis, will have any historical credibility; they will have little or no historical impact and they will have insignificant historical meaning to any of us.
The relentless unwelcome and intruding insistence on the Catholic interpretation of Peter and “authority” will cause a skewing of any historical discussion if we allow it to.
In any case Julian658, I hope your spiritual journey is good and fruitful
You point out that the word "catholic" was not part of the official church name. You imply Ignatius he used the term catholic in passing. Nevertheless, the name stuck. That is history and cannot be changed.
As always you seem to imply that the early church was different from the Roman CC of Constantine in the early 300s. However many writings from that era describe a church that is very Catholic in appearance.
The Didache a document from the 1st century prescribes the correct method to hold a mass and to include the Eucharist.
From the Didache:
Quote:
Concerning the Eucharist
9:1 Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.
9:2 First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.
9:3 Next, concerning the broken bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.
9:4 Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. To you is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.
9:5 Allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this, the Lord has said, "Do not give what is holy to dogs."
And now lets look at other letters by Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Peter and the Bishop of that city.
To the Smyrnaeans
Quote:
Pay close attention to those who have wrong notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and note how at variance they are with God’s mind. They care nothing about love: they have no concern for widows or orphans, for the oppressed, for those in prison or released, for the hungry or the thirsty.
7 They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised .
Read his words about the Eucharist. This is the centerpiece of Catholicism.
Here is his famous phrase about catholicism, but he also urges obedience to the bishop, priests, and deacons. We already have a Catholic hierarchy:
Quote:
8 Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Note how Ignatius requires that only Bishops do the teaching, he is thinking about Apostolic succession and how to avoid heresy.
To the Trallians:
Here ia another letter:
Quote:
2 For when you obey the bishop as if he were Jesus Christ,
3 Correspondingly, everyone must show the deacons respect. They represent Jesus Christ, just as the bishop has the role of the Father, and the presbyters are like God’s council and an apostolic band. You cannot have a church without these. I am sure that you agree with me in this.
Be deaf, then, to any talk that ignores Jesus Christ, of David’s lineage, of Mary; who was really born, ate; and drank; was really persecuted under Pontius Pilate; was really crucified and died, in the sight of heaven and earth and the underworld. He was really raised from the dead, for his Father raised him, just as his Father will raise us, who believe on him, through Christ Jesus, apart from whom we have no genuine life.
I will continue later.
Other letters by early Christians also confirm this.
In addition there was devotion to saints, those that had died as martyrs for Jesus.
Second century Christians believed in this concept.
The first thing Constantine did was to build Saint Peters over the tomb of Peter.
However, you do not have to believe this. I get it!
The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are given to anyone of faith in Jesus and follows.
MT 18:1 "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?"
He said many things to them in response, and most notably that the greatest is whosoever humbleshimself as a child. He went on to say the following:
MT 18:18 "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever you [not just Peter] shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you [plural because He is speaking to the disciples and all] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
MT 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."
MT 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.
Whether one sees Peter as a rock or not is besides the point. He was and so also the others and Paul. Jesus is the Only Rock. All the disciples of old until present are building up the Churches which in many cases have no name but are the two or more who humble themselves and follow. And they have the keys of the Kingdom to bind the wickedness and to lose righteousness on the earth in their sphere of influence.
PS 149:5 "Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
PS 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;
PS 149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
PS 149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
PS 149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honor have all his saints. Praise you the LORD."
This is one reason we are to support law and order and just laws in our land. We all have the keys through faith in Christ.
Post # 86, Julian 658 said : “ There is ample evidence that there was a Catholic Church as early as 107 AD. “
The early Judeo-Christians also described the assembly (εκκλεσια) as an eternal principle that existed before the creation. However, neither use of the word καθολικοσ / Catholic, was a reference to the assembly that became the “Roman Catholic Church”. Καθολικοσ was a secular word to refer to any “general” principle and not particularly a “religious word”. LOOK at Ignatius in the Greek. Καθολικοσ is used by him as an adjective to the word for Church, NOT as a noun, such as the later Roman Catholic Church became.
“ I wanted to add a bit of period-appropriate data regarding the attempt to apply Ignatius' use of the word καθολικοσ / Catholic, to an organization that did not yet exist in this early date (i.e. approx 100 a.d.) . My point in adding this data is to make very clear that this adjective applied to many things having a "general" or "universal" nature, and that in approx 100 a.d., this adjective was not a noun that applied as a name of an organization that did not, as yet exist. At this early period, within perhaps just 50 years or so of the death of the last apostle, JOHN, the Roman Catholic Church as a pre-eminent, dominant political/religious/and financial institution did not yet exist. The Roman congregation, in its early stages, was a single congregation among many.
καθολικοςwas not a noun, but it was an adjective meaning “general” or “universal” . Lists from Moulton and Milligan have given us multiple examples from inscriptions, papyri, and other textual sources where such usage occurred.
For examples : An inscription In the Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 335:6 shows this specific use even in 6 b.c. In Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS), Dittenberger gave us the example from approx. one a.d. of a Judge using καθολικον in a judgement.
In Agyptische Urkunden in berlin another legal example of the use of καθολικον was used in the same way as I described. It was written in 135 a.d. and it begins “υπερεθεμην το νυν πραγμα, επι καθολικον ην…” (I have delayed the present matter, since it was of general (“καθολικον”) interest.”
The title Καθολικος was applied to the chief of the “general department of finance”. For example the Onchrynchus Papyri example 1204 (from a.d. 299) mentions “…the most honorable catholicus Pomponius Domnus” (...τον κυριον μου τον διασημοτατον καθολικον πομπωνιον δομνον...”) There are other examples from the London Papyri (a.d. 246), Th. Reinachs provides another example from the group of Papyri named after his him, as does another OGIS example from the end of the 3rd century a.d.
Other general rulers came under the same titles of κατολικος. For example, in honor of the prytanis, the Onchrychus Papyri says “…ευτυχως τω καθολικω...” which is rendered “prosperity to our ‘leader’ / ‘καθολικω’ “. καθολικοσ even applies in this group of Papyri (1663:15) for a subordinate official having some general authority.
The point is that the adjective “Katholic” in 107, had nothing to do with the noun “Katholic” used in later centuries to describe the church created by the Romans.
JESUS MAY HAVE GIVEN PETER AUTHORITY, BUT PETER NEVER GAVE ROME HIS AUTHORITY
It doesn't matter what authority Peter did or did not have since, historically, he never gave these keys or authority to the Roman congregation.
For any of your claims to have relevance, you are going to have to make this connection at some point.
Historically, this is something the Romans have never done. Yes, they created the pseudo-clementine letters, but very early on, they were seen as counterfeits from a different century than which they claimed and were an embarrassment to the Catholic Claim since they were at once recognized as both counterfeit and they revealed the use of immoral and deceitfulness as a tool to attempt to claim power that the organization never obtained.
Since you are repeating this claim in this thread, we might as well re-visit my response to this claim from another thread as follows :
I understand why you view the word καθολικοσ as used by Bishop Ignatius in 100 a.d. as referring to the Roman Catholic Church and I do not blame you for resisting any historical correction on this point. I wish you could accept my attempt to make what I think is a simple historical correction that the specific use of the word "καθολικος", in 100 a.d. did not apply to the organization of later centuries that became known as the Roman Catholic Church was accepted.
I think that a bit more information can make even more clear why the word καθολικος used by Ignatius in 100 a.d. did not apply to the later Roman Christian Movement that became the Roman Catholic Church besides the fact that the Roman Catholic Church as we know it, did not exist at the time Ignatius was speaking. Perhaps however, we can discuss these issues and you can make your point during these discussions. If you end up still disagreeing, I will understand. I am hoping other posters are able to see what I think are reasons why the assembly/εκκλησια Ignatius was referring to was not the Roman Catholic Church of later centuries.
Firstly, the Original εκκλνσια DID have apostolic authority, whereas the later Roman Christian Movement’s organization never, historically, gained the apostolic authority it claimed.
Secondly, the church Ignatius was referring to, that is, the Original Assembly/εκκλνσια/Church of Jesus Christ was quite a different organization than the Roman Christian movement’s organization.
Thirdly, the base Characteristics of the Original εκκηεσια, had different goals in many ways; and the goals and methods of accomplishing those goals were substantially different. The Original church’s administration was different than the administration of the Roman Christian Movements administration in many fundamental ways. The Original εκκληεσια’s doctrines originating from apostles and prophets were different than the later man-made doctrines of the Roman Religious movements Theologian-derived theological doctrines. there are other issues, but I think these points are the main ones.
Perhaps I can give an initial overview on these points and then return later with more information in order to try to substantiate my claim that the use of the word καθολικος by Ignatius in approx. 100 a.d. was not used in specific reference to the Roman Religious movement which became the Roman Catholic Church in later centuries.
The εκκλησια/Assembly of the original Christian Movement established at the time of Jesus’ ministry was not the same organized εκκλησια that came out of the Roman Movement in say, the 4th century (or whenever this organization became recognizable as a specific “church” having its basic mature characteristics).
1) The Apostle Peter was never, historically, a standing Bishop of the Roman Congregation
Historians have known for many, many years, that historically, the Apostle Peter never served as a standing bishop to the congregation in Rome, nor did he give apostolic power to any subsequent bishop of the Roman Congregation.
Eusebius, and several other historical texts, indicate that Linus, NOT peter, was the first Bishop to the Roman congregation, then Anacletus, third Clemens, fourth Evaristus. Even the concept that Peter would give the keys over the kingdom to a relatively unknown man Linus, is unusual and the claim was made necessary by political motives rather than authentic religious precedence. The claim that Peter was the “first Bishop of Rome” who somehow transferred the keys given him by Christ to a relatively unknown and obscure man (Linus) was never claimed in the earliest periods, but instead was a “back claim” made in later years.
Historically, Linus never announces that he has been given this fantastic power from Peter. There are no period appropriate records indicating this happened. No one at the time tells anyone. No one hears about it nor understands that it happened no one writes about it. No extant Christian diary mentions this authority. No early Christian psalm celebrates this authority. No early Christian commentary teaches this authority was given. No apostolic father knows anything about such authority being given. All textual descriptions are made in the next century as "back claims".
2) THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT LACKED THE SAME PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY IT CLAIMED OTHER CHRISTIAN MOVMENTS LACKED.
Since Historically, Peter never was a standing Bishop of Rome and never, historically, gave his keys and apostolic level authority to a Roman Bishop, the Roman Christian Movement was in the same situation as all other Christian congregations after the death of authentic Apostles and Prophets. The administrative authority given the leaders of the Catholic Movement was not “καθολικ” or “universal” in any sense as was the administrative religious authority in the authentic and original Christian Religious Movement.
3) THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT IN MANY WAYS
The historical misconception that the Roman Catholics church taught the earliest Judeo-Roman traditions and doctrines breaks down among historians :
The Roman Christian movement changed many of the earliest traditions it had acquired from the Original Christian Movement.
The Roman Christian movement adopted some traditions that were entirely new and NOT original to early Judeo-Christianity
The Original Christian Movement held traditions which the later Roman Christian movement rejected and subsequently, no longer taught at all and thus are “lost” in detail and substance to later evolutions of the Roman Christian Movement.
Ecclesiastical leadership was different in type and character in the Roman Christian Movement when compared to the Original Christian movement.
The source of doctrines and their development in the Roman Christian Movement was different than that of the Original Christian Movement.
The Roman Christian Movement developed their own distinct manner of ecclesiastical administration using the same names of offices as the early Christian Movement Used. Though the names were the same, the offices and administrative characteristics were not the same.
4) THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT TO POLITICAL/MILITARY/ECONOMICAL PRE-EMINENCE AMONG THE CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS
The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. Thus, there was a time when other cities in Christendom had pre-eminence (e.g. Rome, Antioch, etc.) and a time when Rome wanted pre-eminence. Rome could not claim religious pre-eminence based on Prima-sedes, or being the oldest bishopric, nor due to apostolic origins (other cities held primacy there as well); nor upon many other characteristics. It is inside this political dilemma that one sees the origin of the claim for authority Rome never actually had. This is the reason existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence and New texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.
The Roman Christian movement engaged in a Political fight for power and prominence that would not have characterized the authentic and original Christian movementWhen the “rank of churches became determined by the prominence of cities as civil capitals,” it was inevitable that clashes between the rivals for prominence would take place.
One saw increasingly political characteristics imbue the elections of the Bishop of Rome that did not characterize Bishoprics in the original Christian movement. One saw a characteristic of desires and goals to the accumulation of political / military power and wealth and influence that did not characterize the Early Christian Movement.
As power accrued in the leadership of the Roman Religious movement, one saw the almost immediate tendency to abuse power for the gain of property; for the increase in membership, and for the oppression of those unwilling to confirm. One need only review the early council canons to see the decisions were corrupted in ways that the original Christian movement had never been corrupted.
The nature of the office of Bishop in the Roman Religious Movement was different of a Bishop in the original movement (though the Roman movement used the same name for the office they created). It creates the same confusion as misuse of the word καθολικος.
I believe that there are reasons for the Roman Christian Movements' wonderful rise to pre-eminence that also demonstrate the difference between the Roman movement and the original Christian Movement. For examples:
The Romans were “Politically fortunate” since their religious movements spread was augmented by “politics of the age” in a manner that the original church could not; would not have been able to take advantage of. The Roman Christian movement was spread by active and aggressive missionary activities which, I think was similar to the original movement in many ways, but was contaminated by politico-economic considerations that did not contaminate the original Christian movement to the same degree. The Roman Christian Movement engaged in the Limitation and suppression of competing Christian messages in a manner characteristically different than the original Christian movement would have done (for example: Inquisitions, etc.).
5) A last bit of miscellaneous History
I DO think that the Roman Christian Religious Movement’s adoption of CATHOLIC as a NOUN (i.e. their name) is perfectly fine and it was even an advertising coup to have done so in early ages. (Today, most individuals no longer understand the linguistic connection.)
Regarding Roman Catholic Historical Misconceptions and their effect on any accurate historical conversations:
All of us have historical misconceptions (myself included). I think two major Roman Catholic historical misconceptions seem to underlie almost all of their historical assumptions; their historical speculations and their historical claims in the entire thread. Until Roman Catholics can overcome these misconceptions, most of their claims in the entire thread will not become credible or constructive nor can they be applied to authentic history.
#1 : Roman Catholics were taught the historical misconception that they were #1 the “first” or “original” Christian congregation from which others split and that they thus, still teach “original” doctrines.
#2: Roman Catholics were taught that their Bishops/Popes somehow received religious Authority of apostleship from the Apostle Peter and so they have more religious authority than other Christianities.
If one corrects these two misconceptions then all other claims the Roman Catholics make are placed into a more accurate context. If one does not correct for these two underlying misconceptions, then few historical conversations which use these misconceptions as their basis, will have any historical credibility; they will have little or no historical impact and they will have insignificant historical meaning to any of us.
The relentless unwelcome and intruding insistence on the Catholic interpretation of Peter and “authority” will cause a skewing of any historical discussion if we allow it to.
In any case Julian658, I hope your spiritual journey is good and fruitful
Clear
φυιειω
Thanks for doing this. I remember the καθολικοσ / Catholic thread and thought excellent points were made. I have spent hours combing through Catholic apologetics websites and they are obsessed with Matthew 16:18-19, yet completely ignore Matthew 18:18 where Jesus gives all the disciples the same ability as Peter is given in Matthew 16:19 Additionally, the keys to the kingdom OF heaven is different than keys to the kingdom TO heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 are the go to verses to justify everything from we're first, we gave you the bible, and most importantly apostolic succession. These apologetics websites make little or no attempt to delve any deeper than superficially. I don't know if they simply hope no one will dig deeper or what.
The keys to the Kingdom of God are given to anyone of faith in Jesus and follows.
MT 18:1 "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He said many things to them in response, and most notably that the greatest is whosoever humbleshimself as a child. He went on to say the following:
MT 18:18 "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever you [not just Peter] shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you [plural because He is speaking to the disciples and all] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
MT 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."
MT 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.
Whether one sees Peter as a rock or not is besides the point. He was and so also the others and Paul. Jesus is the Only Rock. All the disciples of old until present are building up the Churches which in many cases have no name but are the two or more who humble themselves and follow. And they have the keys of the Kingdom to bind the wickedness and to lose righteousness on the earth in their sphere of influence.
PS 149:5 "Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
PS 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;
PS 149:7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
PS 149:8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
PS 149:9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honor have all his saints. Praise you the LORD."
This is one reason we are to support law and order and just laws in our land. We all have the keys through faith in Christ.
I agree. Everybody has the keys. But, from that verse the church concluded that Peter was the first leader.It is what it is.
Thanks for doing this. I remember the καθολικοσ / Catholic thread and thought excellent points were made. I have spent hours combing through Catholic apologetics websites and they are obsessed with Matthew 16:18-19, yet completely ignore Matthew 18:18 where Jesus gives all the disciples the same ability as Peter is given in Matthew 16:19 Additionally, the keys to the kingdom OF heaven is different than keys to the kingdom TO heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 are the go to verses to justify everything from we're first, we gave you the bible, and most importantly apostolic succession. These apologetics websites make little or no attempt to delve any deeper than superficially. I don't know if they simply hope no one will dig deeper or what.
Sure, all other apostles were included. I believe Peter got the honor because he is perceived as the main disciple of Jesus.
I agree. Everybody has the keys. But, from that verse the church concluded that Peter was the first leader.It is what it is.
Yes, it is what it is but only according to RCC. It is what happened after Pentecost when Peter preached that great sermon that counts as to whether or not RCC can claim exclusive succession or not. I say no, because for thing [they be many reasons] I know countless born again Christians who Christ saved without ever consulting with RCC. The Bible refers Truth in Christ as the universal faith, and a common Priesthood of all believers not a universal denomination of a few Priests with exclusive rights. Christ is the only mediator between God and man and He said if any man try's to enter the sheepfold by any other means it is because he is a thief. He is stealing exclusive rights that only Christ has.
The only successors are all who took up the call of God.
The Bride/New Jerusalem was started upon the foundations of the twelve Apostles first and after that and now with the add of the countless whosoevers who heeded/heed the call of God.
REV 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." Peter being only one of them.
REV 3:12 "Him [whosoever] that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is New Jerusalem, which comes down out of Heaven from My God: and I will write upon him My new name."
Yes, it is what it is but only according to RCC. It is what happened after Pentecost when Peter preached that great sermon that counts as to whether or not RCC can claim exclusive succession or not. I say no, because for thing [they be many reasons] I know countless born again Christians who Christ saved without ever consulting with RCC. The Bible refers Truth in Christ as the universal faith, and a common Priesthood of all believers not a universal denomination of a few Priests with exclusive rights. Christ is the only mediator between God and man and He said if any man try's to enter the sheepfold by any other means it is because he is a thief. He is stealing exclusive rights that only Christ has.
The only successors are all who took up the call of God.
The Bride/New Jerusalem was started upon the foundations of the twelve Apostles first and after that and now with the add of the countless whosoevers who heeded/heed the call of God.
REV 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." Peter being only one of them.
REV 3:12 "Him [whosoever] that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is New Jerusalem, which comes down out of Heaven from My God: and I will write upon him My new name."
The RCC says that all non Catholic Christians are saved. In fact the Church considers these Christians catholic. I have no disagreement with your words.
Last edited by Julian658; 10-26-2013 at 08:46 PM..
I agree. Everybody has the keys. But, from that verse the church concluded that Peter was the first leader.It is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Sure, all other apostles were included. I believe Peter got the honor because he is perceived as the main disciple of Jesus.
It's more Peter just being the first leader of the CC.
From Catholic Answers: The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on) The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine.
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20)
HOW GOD SPEAKS TO US As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83)Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition. Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition.
Baptism (CCC 1213–1284)Through baptism we are born again, but this time on a spiritual level instead of a physical level.
Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom.The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the [Catholic] Church.
It's more Peter just being the first leader of the CC.
From Catholic Answers: The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on) The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine.
The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20)
HOW GOD SPEAKS TO US As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83)Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition. Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition.
Baptism (CCC 1213–1284)Through baptism we are born again, but this time on a spiritual level instead of a physical level.
Although all twelve apostles were present, Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the kingdom.The keys symbolize Christ’s authority over the kingdom of heaven on earth—the [Catholic] Church.
Priscilla:
I love your post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
