Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church (Real Church History People)!

[Slimt103]

Yes, for anyone who seriously studies Christian Church history, Catholicism is familiar to you. Love Her, hate Her, or think nothing of Her, She is the history of the Christian Church. As the oldest running institution on Earth, The Catholic Church precedes Protestant Churches in history by AT LEAST one thousands, five hundred years. The Catholic Church precedes the idea of a separate schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church by one thousand one hundred years. The Catholic Church is Church history.

So from, the early days of Roman persecution, where nearly every Pope was martyred. To the time of Constantine (without which the Christian Church likely would have been a minor blip on world history mind you). To the fall of the Roman Empire, in which the Church rose and took Rome’s place. Through Christendom, which Holy Mother Church reigned supreme in the west for nearly one thousand years. Crafting Crusades (which every Christian should be vastly thankful for), punishing heretics (whom endanger the souls of the ones they lead astray), bringing Kings on their bare feet in the snow just to receive Papal absolution, toppling monarchies, and flourishing all that is Western Culture. To the time of the Reformation, in which Satan dealt his mortal blow to Christendom in his never ending desire to kill the Church by “Divide and Conquer”. To the modern day, still one billion strong and keeping an unbroken line of Apostolic successors to St. Peter himself, the Rock Jesus founded his Faith on.

“I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Questions, Comments, Concerns?

[Rusty T]

Only that your're wrong and that this should be in Ecclesiology.

rusty

[Slimt103]

Would you like to specify as to what quip of Church history I presented wrongly? I presume you think the Eastern Orthodox schism of 1054?

And no, this is for the History of the Christian Church.

[One Bad Pig]

Would you like to specify as to what quip of Church history I presented wrongly? I presume you think the Eastern Orthodox schism of 1054?

And no, this is for the History of the Christian Church.
That's what he's referring to, yes. The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the true church, from which the Roman Catholics split off.

[Anoetos]

Sounds like it's got you all fired up...

If you're talking about Crocker's crock, that's exactly what it is...excitingly written but very poorly researched grist for the Roman apologetic mill...but then, propaganda doesn't really need to be researched, now does it?

In a very real way there's no such thing as unbiased history, but there are historians who come close, who are not wrapped up in scoring polemical points when they write it. Crocker ain't one of 'em.

It's junk history; you'd be better off reading Noll or Pelikan or even LaTourette.

[Slimt103]

I am surprised you recognized the name from Crocker's book. And while the thread is named after it (because I think it has a rather cool name) I haven’t read the book in some time, this thread isn’t really about the book itself.

As for the Orthodox Church, I guess that is a good place to start...

I have to admit that it surprises me a little to hear that the Orthodox actually believe that the Western Church broke away from Constantinople. Even the Eastern Orthodox people whom I have conversed with explain the schism by saying the Western Church became corrupt and no longer possible to stay under, so the East broke away.

Can we agree that before 1054 there was one unified Church (with East West strain of course? For instance the Council of Chalcedon, in which the Eastern Patriarch accepted the terms. That he was the voice of the See of Peter to the East when the Pope could not possibly be present to decide issues and such, but that he was to remain UNDER the Bishopric of Rome. The problem arose when the Muslims cut off communication and the Patriarch of Constantinople no longer could contact the Pontiff. And when Humbert was sent things got even worse, and thus we had a Schism. But I don’t see Rome breaking from the East? I know that Humbert excommunicated Caerularius (who was avidly persecuted Western Churches in his empire). But the fact that the Eastern Church chose to follow him, instead of following a non-excommunicated Patriarch was what caused the Schism.

However, I truly do believe that the schism would have been rather short if not for the Muslim threat again. When the East did basically what Britain and France did during WWII with the US. HELP US! Consider the following analogy.
The Muslims (Germany) attacked and captured Asia Minor (France) and Constantinople (Britain) could not repel the attack. So the East called on the West (The US) to come liberate them. So Pope Urban II (FDR) sent a Crusade to liberate the East (D-Day, the "modern Crusade"). And we did. The only difference is that this time the bad guys won their battle of the Buldge. So why than does the East seem to be so angry about all this? If not for the Crusades the West (and thus Christianity) would have fallen right after Constantinople would have fallen. Is it because the 3rd or 4th (whichever one I cannot place) sacked Constantinople? The city was in Schism, the East had been flurting with Heresy for centuries. And most importantly of all, it was the Knights, not the Pope who decided to do it. However, the Schism was over, only to have the East leave again shortly there after.

I don't see how the West broke from the East in all of this?

[Rusty T]

I have to admit that it surprises me a little to hear that the Orthodox actually believe that the Western Church broke away from Constantinople. Even the Eastern Orthodox people whom I have conversed with explain the schism by saying the Western Church became corrupt and no longer possible to stay under, so the East broke away.

The Orthodox Church didn't 'break' from anything. The Church has kept the faith once delivered by Christ for 2000 years. For a great history of the Orthodox Church, including the schism, I would recommend Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church, part one of which you can read here: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm (simply change the 1 to a 2 in the address bar for part two)

Can we agree that before 1054 there was one unified Church (with East West strain of course? For instance the Council of Chalcedon, in which the Eastern Patriarch accepted the terms. That he was the voice of the See of Peter to the East when the Pope could not possibly be present to decide issues and such, but that he was to remain UNDER the Bishopric of Rome.

I wonder if you've read the Council of Chalcedon. I have. For those interested, it can be read here (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm). Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon states:

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

The Pope of Rome did not like this of course, but the fact that the Council passed this over the papal objections is very telling indeed. It is also revealing as to why Rome had ecclesiastical previledges to begin with - it was 'honoured by imperial power and the senate'.

The problem arose when the Muslims cut off communication and the Patriarch of Constantinople no longer could contact the Pontiff. And when Humbert was sent things got even worse, and thus we had a Schism.

Humbert had the audacity to claim that the Orthodox had changed the Nicene Creed by not including the filoque. Quiet telling.

*snip* the rest

Again, read Bishop Ware's history and at least get a reasoned Orthdox understanding of the schism.

rusty

[themuzicman]

I think the problem goes back about 1700 years, when the church decided that it needed to have absolute doctrinal control over the church, and set the papacy (and pope) up as Christ's repsentative in the earth, attempting to replace the Holy Spirit as the teacher of the church, and to replace the elders of the local church as the highest biblical authority.

I understand the necessity of stamping out heretical doctrine, but the authoritarian solution put men in the position of power over the church where God should be, and, as we all know, power corrupts.

It simply took 1200 years for someone within the church to stand up and oppose the corruption.

Unfortunately, many of the problem elements within the church came into denominationalism, and so, while the protestants have been a step forward, their power structures are ultimately proving to be their downfall, as well.

Michael

[Slimt103]

Not sure what you mean by *snip the rest*. Perhaps you can explain.
Concerning the Council of Chalcedon. What you posted doesn’t contradict what I said in any way.

"We issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome."
-That shows that the Diocese of Rome is older than that of Constantinople "New Rome". What you posted shows that "Old Rome" precedes the "New Rome" (seems obvious to me)

"And enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her."
-Here is the part which explains what I said early. The Holy See (which was represented at the Council, the Pope objected to parts of the Cannon which was unclear, he did not suggest that any part should be deleted, merely clarified deeper) gave the diocese of Constantinople privilege over the other diocese in the area (what I said before) BUT!!!! put it "second place after her". "Her" being "old Rome". Once again, what I said before. The bishopric of Constantinople taking precedence over the East, but still UNDER ROME.

And I think it would serve better if you would not refer to links concerning your views on the Schism. Paraphrase maybe, or copy and paste. Lord knows I have millions of links, but it is easier, and faster to read, if the important aspects are simply posted

Now, concerning Humbert. The filioque clause is more of a theological issue concerning the nature of the Trinity. However, as far as the historical aspects go… It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. The filioque did not contradict any Catholic teaching, and in fact reinforced the teaching of the Trinity, so it stated to clarify for the Goths. The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day. (sorry that was a little long winded, but its not an easy subject matter)

-Thanks

[furay]

Oh boy. I'm not going to touch this one except to note that some of you have been reading some funky history books. :lmbo: I think it would be more productive for us to assemble a time machine and travel back to these events
than to hash this out here. Ain't nobody gonna change nobody's mind.

[Slimt103]

Thank you for that productive post furay. Maybe if you yourself have some knowledge the rest of the world doesn't know about the history of this you could share? Or more probably you don't have any idea. Either way, what have you got to lose?

[PennyDreadful]

furay's post WAS rather productive; what history books are YOU reading?

[furay]

furay's post WAS rather productive; what history books are YOU reading?
Thanks for the support, Penny, but he's right. My post wasn't productive - I was just being sassy. Forgive me. I'm working on my self control to resist adding to topics such as this one, because they ultimately go nowhere and I usually (perhaps always) offend someone with my big fat mouth. Ultimately you have people in their respective camps who are firmly planted in their argument and discussing this stuff won't edify anyone. Please, forget I even posted here.

[PennyDreadful]

Thanks for the support, Penny, but he's right. My post wasn't productive - I was just being sassy. Forgive me. I'm working on my self control to resist adding to topics such as this one, because they ultimately go nowhere and I usually (perhaps always) offend someone with my big fat mouth. Ultimately you have people in their respective camps who are firmly planted in their argument and discussing this stuff won't edify anyone. Please, forget I even posted here.

THAT is precisely why your post was productive.

Christ is risen.

[furay]

THAT is precisely why your post was productive.

Christ is risen.

Indeed, He is risen!
I hope you had a blessed Pascha so far and enjoy what is left of it.
I'm happy you agree with me, but that doesn't change the fact that I was rude. I authored the post and while I was typing it I was in a bad space, I have no right to poke my nose in here and intentionally offend. Sorry.

[cweb255]

As the oldest running institution on Earth
Go here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=123452

The Catholic Church precedes the idea of a separate schismatic Eastern Orthodox Church by one thousand one hundred years. The Catholic Church is Church history.
Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.

So from, the early days of Roman persecution, where nearly every Pope was martyred.
You have some evidence for this?

To the time of Constantine (without which the Christian Church likely would have been a minor blip on world history mind you).
Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?

Crafting Crusades (which every Christian should be vastly thankful for), punishing heretics (whom endanger the souls of the ones they lead astray), bringing Kings on their bare feet in the snow just to receive Papal absolution, toppling monarchies, and flourishing all that is Western Culture.
Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!

To the time of the Reformation, in which Satan dealt his mortal blow to Christendom in his never ending desire to kill the Church by “Divide and Conquer”. To the modern day, still one billion strong and keeping an unbroken line of Apostolic successors to St. Peter himself, the Rock Jesus founded his Faith on.
Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.

“I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).

Questions, Comments, Concerns?
Read more.

[Slimt103]

cweb255 I run into this a lot. People who have no idea what to say in response, so instead run off a list of unsupported statements and end with little quips like "read more" or "learn history" ext. From my past experience this is usually the sign of a weaker background in this subject matter (outside what their local pastor tells them to believe).

First off, I'm not sure why you posted the link to that forum; I went there and found nothing of interest. Would you like to specify what you wanted me to see?

You want evidence that the Early Popes where martyred? Well first there is Peter (o yes you don’t believe in him, after all what does the Bible know? Since when are people in the Bible real people? In fact with that logic, who is to say that Jesus is real?). But perhaps you should read up on St. Linus and the like, early merited Bishops of Rome.

Constantine moved the capital yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about here. Constantine legalized Christianity, enough said.

And as for the Crusades and Inquisition. I don’t know if you’re Christian, or American. But let me speak from my perspective (Christian American). Looking at the middle east, and the Muslim culture, I thank God every day that the West was not conquered by the infidel. The Crusades stopped that from happening. Perhaps we need an Inquisition today, especially here in the US, sure would take care of some things...

As for Martin Luther, I agree the Church needed reform in his time (just as it had in many times before). The Church needed Saints to reform Her (like St. Francis, Benedict, Gregory, Leo, and ext.) not self a righteous monk who turned to Heresy for self gain and completely forgot the Church he was trying to reform.

And for Peter's primacy. I'm not going to argue Biblical theology with you, it is pointless. First because this wasn’t the purpose of the thread, second because you can just as easily say that something in the Bible isn’t true or didn’t exist (like St. Peter).

[santaro75]

ahhh come on dude. The protestant faith is not a step forward. It is exactly what the word says a "protest". A noble idea but the modern churches are a far cry from what the reformers had in mind.

[cweb255]

cweb255 I run into this a lot. People who have no idea what to say in response, so instead run off a list of unsupported statements and end with little quips like "read more" or "learn history" ext. From my past experience this is usually the sign of a weaker background in this subject matter (outside what their local pastor tells them to believe).
Pastors don't tell me to believe anything. I'm not a Christian, unlike you. And I didn't give positive statements, so your "unsupported statements" is irrelevant. All I did was question the validity of your statements, which, of course, you didn't support at all. Hypocrite.

First off, I'm not sure why you posted the link to that forum; I went there and found nothing of interest. Would you like to specify what you wanted me to see?
You claimed that the Church was the oldest institution. I pointed otherwise.

You want evidence that the Early Popes where martyred? Well first there is Peter (o yes you don’t believe in him, after all what does the Bible know? Since when are people in the Bible real people? In fact with that logic, who is to say that Jesus is real?). But perhaps you should read up on St. Linus and the like, early merited Bishops of Rome.
You ask since when are people in the Bible real people? Oh yes, all of them, right? And since we're not questioning ancient documents, that means that Zeus, Romulus and Remus, Achilles, Thor, Shiva, are all real too, right? Otherwise you'd be a two-faced hypocrite.

Constantine moved the capital yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about here. Constantine legalized Christianity, enough said.
By moving the capital to Constantinople he stripped the power (or tried to) from Rome's hands to the newly founded city. Thus his legalization really put the "Real Church" in the East thus nullifying your arguement.

And as for the Crusades and Inquisition. I don’t know if you’re Christian, or American. But let me speak from my perspective (Christian American). Looking at the middle east, and the Muslim culture, I thank God every day that the West was not conquered by the infidel. The Crusades stopped that from happening. Perhaps we need an Inquisition today, especially here in the US, sure would take care of some things...
You're suggesting mass murder for people who disagree with your beliefs. You sir, are the most dispicable creature, and belong, if there was one, in the depths of hell to be forever tormented by demons. I believe your statements are also anti-Christian (turn the other cheek) and anti-American (freedom of religion). In short, you're nothing but a psychopath with murderous tendencies. You need help, man, serious help.

As for Martin Luther, I agree the Church needed reform in his time (just as it had in many times before). The Church needed Saints to reform Her (like St. Francis, Benedict, Gregory, Leo, and ext.) not self a righteous monk who turned to Heresy for self gain and completely forgot the Church he was trying to reform.
The church acted first. By excommunicating him, they left him with no alternative but to found a new church. In your own words, then, the church must be the devil.

And for Peter's primacy. I'm not going to argue Biblical theology with you, it is pointless. First because this wasn’t the purpose of the thread, second because you can just as easily say that something in the Bible isn’t true or didn’t exist (like St. Peter).
Sure. Good for you. Now your point in all this was? :ahem:

[jason]

As for Martin Luther, I agree the Church needed reform in his time
Yes it did, and the Catholic Church still does. It has not put aside the false teachings from Luthers time even today.

The Church needed Saints to reform Her (like St. Francis, Benedict, Gregory, Leo, and ext.) not self a righteous monk who turned to Heresy for self gain and completely forgot the Church he was trying to reform.
Self gain ?

You are aware that Luther was thrown out, he did not leave. He was not the Schismatic, the Pope was.

Jason

[Sheepdog]

It simply took 1200 years for someone within the church to stand up and oppose the corruption.l

Actually, it didn't take that long. There were many who attempted to reform the Catholic church. Granted, some were heretical as agreed upon by all sides, but a few others are notable as predicessors to Luther. Unfortunately they came in a time before the Pope's political power waned.



In regards to the topic of the thread in general, perhaps it is more accurate to say that both sides split from each other, as the scism started when the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated each other.

[Slimt103]

cweb, forget it, run along somewhere else to be annoying.

Sheepdog, the point is the Bishop of Constantinople had no power to excommunicate the Pope. Both sides agreed upon this when the Patriarch of the east accepted second authority UNDER ROME.

Jason, I meant the Church had abuses at the time of Luther. Notice that the reformation brought about no change of doctrine. And Martin Luther was excommunicated because of his own acts. He was called to Rome to answer questions of heretical teachings (which he was guilty of) so he decided to burn the Papal document summoning him and call the Pope the anti-Christ. It is like spitting in the deans face at a suspension conference. You’re going to get expelled.

[cweb255]

cweb, forget it, run along somewhere else to be annoying.
Of course, I bring up valid points and you ignore it completely. How Christian of you.

[jason]

Jason, I meant the Church had abuses at the time of Luther.
No kidding and it still has them today.

Notice that the reformation brought about no change of doctrine.
That depends what you mean. Given there is a clear rejection of Aristotealean silliness like Transubstantiation.

And Martin Luther was excommunicated because of his own acts.
Yes for teaching salvation is by Faith alone. Which it is. You cannot earn or merit salvation by your own actions.

He was called to Rome to answer questions of heretical teachings (which he was guilty of) so he decided to burn the Papal document summoning him and call the Pope the anti-Christ.
Which given the character of the Popes at the time may not have been an entirely inappropriate action. Don't forget, Luther didn't want to leave the Church.

Jason

[James Peter]

The Catholic Church which didn't really exist until the 4th Century although it has always tried to claim an earlier legacy, had such a glorious next thousand or so years as a political institution and then gave way to the rise of modern western civilisation via Protestant Countries that were at war with the pawns of Rome (France, Spain etc) for a few more centuries. Very glorious. Very powerful. If you go for temporal definitions and still live in the 13th Century.

Lets not forget what Rome did to the legitimate Church in Britain when it refused to bow to her (sixth century or so I believe), thats right...massacred all the Bishops who were present, changed the rituals and beliefs from the ones they had received centuries earlier and so forth. Again, really good.

So much of 'Christian' history has seen religion merely used as a tool. The Romans always used Religion to control the people and after a thousand years they simply switched from Polytheism to a perversion of Christianity which those at the time accepted because it was nice to not worry about being killed any more. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Protestant Church has got it right yet but it is closer to the Truth than Rome is. You're right though that 'Protestant' is a silly way to still be defining ourselves.

[Sheepdog]

cweb255, we do not permit "arguments by weblink," here. for future reference, please post whatever quotes here you find relevant, and provide a link only for citation purposes. thank you.

[Slimt103]

yes cweb255, since "You're suggesting mass murder for people who disagree with your beliefs. You sir, are the most despicable creature, and belong, if there was one, in the depths of hell to be forever tormented by demons. I believe your statements are also anti-Christian (turn the other cheek) and anti-American (freedom of religion). In short, you're nothing but a psychopath with murderous tendencies. You need help, man, serious help." is very valid point. Perhaps you should read my analogy of the Crusades to World War II earlier in the thread, and then when you are done, run along and be annoying somewhere else.

James Peter... look into European History more. They even teach this stuff at Public High School's. The Catholic Church wasn’t around until the fourth century? I suggest you read the Didache, a document similar to the Catechism, in that it is very obviously Catholic. It was written around 70 AD. Or maybe most of the historians are in a big conspiracy with the Vatican! We should contact Dan Brown.

[Tween]

No matter what your interpretation of the history of the Church may be, does anyone honestly think that what Christ had in mind as "The Body of Christ" looked anything like ANY Church (Roman or otherwise) of today?

Go here: * edited by a moderator *


Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.


You have some evidence for this?


Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?


Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!


Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.


First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).


Read more.

[James Peter]

James Peter... look into European History more. They even teach this stuff at Public High School's. The Catholic Church wasn’t around until the fourth century? I suggest you read the Didache, a document similar to the Catechism, in that it is very obviously Catholic. It was written around 70 AD. Or maybe most of the historians are in a big conspiracy with the Vatican! We should contact Dan Brown.

Trust me, my european history isn't lacking. And I've already read the didache - I'm not sure why you'd date it so early though, earlier than the academically accepted dates for the canonical gospels. I'd personally place it around 100 or later, after the pastorals. In what ways would you consider the didache 'Catholic'? That people are urged to confess their sins in church? It certainly leans towards an 'institutional' view of christianity but so do the pastorals. I'm not contending that there was an institution of christianity from as early as the late first century (although congregations were at this point independent from each other), I'm arguing that the existance of churches doesn't equate to the existance of the Roman Catholic Church.

It was in the 4th Century that the Church became a unified, political entity. It was in the 4th Century that the political institution which would be used to control europe for the next 1200 years was really born.

Of course there are those who will argue that there was a continuity between the 3rd and 4th centuries or that the Church remained faithful for a while and only later after a few generations of political appointments did it cease to be the true church. I just find that it is the best date to place the birth of the Roman Catholic Church and won't comment on how 'orthodox' her beliefs were at this point. Its almost impossible to know how faithful this early church was or how it differed from the church of a hundred years earlier because few documents survive such long periods, those that do are difficult to date exactly and the RCC spent centuries rewriting history, so much so that the original history is practically unrecoverable.

[aquinas1991]

Go here: * edited by a moderator *


Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.


You have some evidence for this?


Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?


Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!


Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.


First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).


Read more.

In the old testament , the sucessor of a king always had the same power as the king himself or the successor of a vice-roy always had the same power as the previous vice-roy the same applies when we look at history.
the sucessors of a king or prince had all the powers of a prince or king or a vice-roy.

to suggest that only peter had that peter is to say the least silly, for peter wouldn't be the rock of the church if there was no succession.

[aquinas1991]

Trust me, my european history isn't lacking. And I've already read the didache - I'm not sure why you'd date it so early though, earlier than the academically accepted dates for the canonical gospels. I'd personally place it around 100 or later, after the pastorals. In what ways would you consider the didache 'Catholic'? That people are urged to confess their sins in church? It certainly leans towards an 'institutional' view of christianity but so do the pastorals. I'm not contending that there was an institution of christianity from as early as the late first century (although congregations were at this point independent from each other), I'm arguing that the existance of churches doesn't equate to the existance of the Roman Catholic Church.

It was in the 4th Century that the Church became a unified, political entity. It was in the 4th Century that the political institution which would be used to control europe for the next 1200 years was really born.

Of course there are those who will argue that there was a continuity between the 3rd and 4th centuries or that the Church remained faithful for a while and only later after a few generations of political appointments did it cease to be the true church. I just find that it is the best date to place the birth of the Roman Catholic Church and won't comment on how 'orthodox' her beliefs were at this point. Its almost impossible to know how faithful this early church was or how it differed from the church of a hundred years earlier because few documents survive such long periods, those that do are difficult to date exactly and the RCC spent centuries rewriting history, so much so that the original history is practically unrecoverable.


the RCC rewrote history, a laughable claim.
they tried to but they only rewrote extremely small and limited bits to the degree what the did has no effect on us and of they did so it was for our own good.
some of you will always consider the catholic church your enemy, but may i poiny several things:
firstly the orthodox church was thrown out of the universal church by the Roman Catholic church and they responded by throwing out the roman catholic church
secondly no offence to any protestants on thsi forum, but your beliefs are an island cut off from all historical christainity, the consensus of the church fathers either west or east on any issue does not agree with you and so not only do you go against the early church, the church fathers, you also go against many of the ecumenical councils (both the first seven and the latter councils)
i just thought you should know and i consider the orthodox church my closest seperated, almost my brothers and sister in christ, because as a Roman Catholic they are closest to the roman catholic beliefs and they are not unhistorical like a ceartin other church.

[aquinas1991]

No matter what your interpretation of the history of the Church may be, does anyone honestly think that what Christ had in mind as "The Body of Christ" looked anything like ANY Church (Roman or otherwise) of today?


I do, you see the roman catholic church is not split into 30,000 denominations that al argue and bicker with each othe. what church you are wondering do i refer to? the protestant churches.
And as for the orthodox church, they may be my closets seperated brethren but they were influenced far too much by the state.

[humanevitae]

To the time of the Reformation, in which Satan dealt his mortal blow to Christendom



Slimt, this is the only part of your original article that I disagree with. The Reformation was not mortal to the Catholic Church. Please remember the time of the Aryans. They controlled 4/5 of the Church
including the element of Aryan priests and bishops. If the Catholic Church could weather this they could weather anything.

The gates of hell will not overcome our Church.

[humanevitae]

The Orthodox Church didn't 'break' from anything. The Church has kept the faith once delivered by Christ for 2000 years. For a great history of the Orthodox Church, including the schism, I would recommend Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church, part one of which you can read here: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm (simply change the 1 to a 2 in the address bar for part two)



I wonder if you've read the Council of Chalcedon. I have. For those interested, it can be read here (http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm). Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon states:

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

The Pope of Rome did not like this of course, but the fact that the Council passed this over the papal objections is very telling indeed. It is also revealing as to why Rome had ecclesiastical previledges to begin with - it was 'honoured by imperial power and the senate'.



Humbert had the audacity to claim that the Orthodox had changed the Nicene Creed by not including the filoque. Quiet telling.

*snip* the rest

Again, read Bishop Ware's history and at least get a reasoned Orthdox understanding of the schism.

rusty



By passing this over the Pope's objection, it was automatically false. By the way, why shouldn't the Pope have Imperial backing. This backing in unity with the armed forces was what kept Europe united and safe.
By the way, at this time there was no Senate.
Instead of making wild charges, why don't you do some studying.

[humanevitae]

I think the problem goes back about 1700 years, when the church decided that it needed to have absolute doctrinal control over the church, and set the papacy (and pope) up as Christ's repsentative in the earth, attempting to replace the Holy Spirit as the teacher of the church, and to replace the elders of the local church as the highest biblical authority.

I understand the necessity of stamping out heretical doctrine, but the authoritarian solution put men in the position of power over the church where God should be, and, as we all know, power corrupts.

It simply took 1200 years for someone within the church to stand up and oppose the corruption.

Unfortunately, many of the problem elements within the church came into denominationalism, and so, while the protestants have been a step forward, their power structures are ultimately proving to be their downfall, as well.

Michael




How is it that the Church has absolute power over the Church? Why shouldn't they?
The Holy Spirit is in control of the Church but this fact does not take away the position of Pope which was instituted by Jesus.

The Catholic Church has authority on all Church teachings. Call this authoritative if you like, but there are not 25,000 Catholic Churches each deciding for themselves what the truth is.

Unfortuately the Reformation correct nothing. It set the stage for death and destuction.

It's good that you recognize the problems with your Protestant Churches.

[humanevitae]

Go here: * edited by a moderator *


Your bias shows. Both churches split over issues. They were divorced.


You have some evidence for this?


Didn't he move the capital to Constantinople in the East?


Oh yes, power hungry dictators that ruled the Papal States and beyond through wars and assassinations and mass burnings of people with different opinions was a great thing!


Satan dealt his blow by trying to reform the church? Come on man, it was the Catholic Church which excommunicated Martin Luther first. Catholics were selling escapes into heaven, appointing relatives to higher church positions, and basically running the church mafioso style and Luther wanted to stop that.


First of all, Jesus never said that Peter's successors were to have that same power, but Peter alone. Secondly, there is no evidence for Peter being the first bishop of Rome besides tradition alone. He probably never existed in the first place (unless you want to count him as the cowardly and fickle Peter in Paul's letters who was uber-loyal to James).


Read more.




If you don't know that just about every Pope was martyred withing the first 300 years, then exactly what do you know?

If the position of Pope was to have no successors then who would be the leader when Peter died.
Jesus decided that Peter was to be the Pope. The only reason you say differently is because you follow one of 25,000 Protestant faiths.

[humanevitae]

The Catholic Church which didn't really exist until the 4th Century although it has always tried to claim an earlier legacy, had such a glorious next thousand or so years as a political institution and then gave way to the rise of modern western civilisation via Protestant Countries that were at war with the pawns of Rome (France, Spain etc) for a few more centuries. Very glorious. Very powerful. If you go for temporal definitions and still live in the 13th Century.

Lets not forget what Rome did to the legitimate Church in Britain when it refused to bow to her (sixth century or so I believe), thats right...massacred all the Bishops who were present, changed the rituals and beliefs from the ones they had received centuries earlier and so forth. Again, really good.

So much of 'Christian' history has seen religion merely used as a tool. The Romans always used Religion to control the people and after a thousand years they simply switched from Polytheism to a perversion of Christianity which those at the time accepted because it was nice to not worry about being killed any more. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Protestant Church has got it right yet but it is closer to the Truth than Rome is. You're right though that 'Protestant' is a silly way to still be defining ourselves.




The Catholic Church was established by Jesus. The Holy Spirit will guide it forever. It is the Bride of Christ. It will survive any and all attacks by heretics and the devil.

[humanevitae]

No matter what your interpretation of the history of the Church may be, does anyone honestly think that what Christ had in mind as "The Body of Christ" looked anything like ANY Church (Roman or otherwise) of today?






Yes!

[humanevitae]

Trust me, my european history isn't lacking. And I've already read the didache - I'm not sure why you'd date it so early though, earlier than the academically accepted dates for the canonical gospels. I'd personally place it around 100 or later, after the pastorals. In what ways would you consider the didache 'Catholic'? That people are urged to confess their sins in church? It certainly leans towards an 'institutional' view of christianity but so do the pastorals. I'm not contending that there was an institution of christianity from as early as the late first century (although congregations were at this point independent from each other), I'm arguing that the existance of churches doesn't equate to the existance of the Roman Catholic Church.

It was in the 4th Century that the Church became a unified, political entity. It was in the 4th Century that the political institution which would be used to control europe for the next 1200 years was really born.

Of course there are those who will argue that there was a continuity between the 3rd and 4th centuries or that the Church remained faithful for a while and only later after a few generations of political appointments did it cease to be the true church. I just find that it is the best date to place the birth of the Roman Catholic Church and won't comment on how 'orthodox' her beliefs were at this point. Its almost impossible to know how faithful this early church was or how it differed from the church of a hundred years earlier because few documents survive such long periods, those that do are difficult to date exactly and the RCC spent centuries rewriting history, so much so that the original history is practically unrecoverable.






Beliefs of the Catholic Church can be gained from the Didache or the 37 volumes of the Early Church Fathers. Who are you listening to? There are such things as facts.

[One Bad Pig]

You do realize that you're replying to posts made over two years ago, I hope. I'd completely forgotten about this thread. Tizzidale and furay are both now Catholic, and I'm Orthodox.