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

[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/bo...thy_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. 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.

[Rushing Jaws]

A title like "Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church" is really off-putting. If it bothers this Catholic as much as it is does (and it bothers me a lot), Heaven knows what sort of impression it will make on Evangelicals :( It's a terrible title, especially "The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church" - Jesus Christ was somewhat lacking in power and in glory when crucified, and Crocker's Church-glorifying title does a regrettably good job of appearing to exalt the Church above the Crucified Lord of the Church.

Mere bulk, numbers, quantity, age, mean very little. A man is smaller than the sun - but the sun is not made in the image of God; men are. The USSR was pretty gigantic, and the PRC is even bigger, at least in population. But they are dust & ashes, mere vapour, compared to God. The US is no more than a leaf on the wind - all nations & empires pass, no matter how enormous. The Church was once nothing - and it can become nothing again, if it is not faithful to Christ. And only He can make it so. Men may be impressed by vastness, but God is not. How can the God without Whom nothing would exist be over-awed by His own creation ?