The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Erose]

No, no. We all are aware that the church is known by the marks "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." The fact that one denomination uses one of those four terms as part of its name is commonly misunderstood by both members and non-members to mean that the early church was that denomination.

Misunderstood? There is no misunderstanding Albion, except on your part. The Catholic Church is that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It has always been and always will be that Church. She is the Church that coined that phrase at the council of Constantiople. No misunderstanding here at all.

Plus, any writer or speaker who uses the wording is liable to being misunderstood because people want to think in black or white terms and often miss the gray areas, or else they see everything through the eyes of today's understandings, not the way people in another era perceived things.

Yeah that happens a lot here on GT. I wish you guys would start thinking that way, but so far it still eludes your grasp.

But, BTW, we also have denominations that use one of the other three...and their members will argue up and down that this "proves" that the non-denominational church of the first century was actually their denomination. "Just look at the word," they say with confidence. LOL.

Yes you are right there are some Christian sects that delude themselves, so to make sure I'm not one of those deluded ones, I will stick with the Church that HISTORICALLY is the Church founded by Christ and His Apostles.

You've accepted the claim of that denomination. I'm sure that if you were a Mormon, you'd believe just as strongly that the true church apostasized, only to be restored in the 1820s, or if you were a member of some Baptist denominations you'd be telling me that "it's "history" that the first Christians were Baptists and that there is an unbroken Apostolic Succession connecting them to that church today.

I accepted no claim of any denomination on this fact. Again I will say it, I ACCEPTED THE HISTORICAL RECORD. The point of my earlier post that you got such a kick out of is that my Church, doesn't have to claim its origins, it is part of the historical record. It is in every European History text book, World History text book, and is accepted as a fact by the world. The only folks who don't accept this fact are small number of evangelicals who feel the need to justify their hatred of Christ's original Church, by changing history.

History is history, and denying history is ....

If you don't believe the historical record, then it is up to YOU to prove it wrong. Not me and anyone else who accepts the common knowledge. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Albion]

Let's look at this...

Who was the first bishop of Rome to claim a universal jurisdiction? When was that?

No other denomination/communion has such a figure--and certainly not the Eastern Orthodox whose churches are certainly older than the congregation in Rome--so this would be a significant development, no?
you think that changes in power mark the creation of a new group?

No, but we are not speaking of a mere changing of the guard--the death of a bishop and a new one taking his place. The creation of the Papacy with its claims on universal jurisdiction and (ultimately) infallibility is the single most divisive step in Christian history and the "toughest nut to crack" when it comes to church reunion. Everyone involved in that cause knows this. There can be agreement on the sacraments and much else but that one is almost unsolvable, so much does it put one, single denomination at odds with all others, all other doctrinal matters aside. It is characteristic of one church only.

So when did this develop? That's the question I asked, and it cannot be passed over as something of little historic consequence.

Maybe this would help, how old is the Anglican Church?

Probably slightly older than the church at Rome, but possibly a few years younger.

I am no trying to get off topic, I am trying to understand how you calculate the age of a Church so I can better understand how you think

That's fine, but I don't see the problem. I'm not speaking of when the first Christian appeared in any locale. I'm addressing the breakup of different chunks or communions of the once undivided church. Surely anyone who knows that the Great Schism occurred in 1054 can't be unaware that there once was a tenuous unity and then, progressively, the churches separated into different communions.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The real question is who was the first bishop of Rome to be given a universal office? That's Peter, and upon this Rock Jesus built his Church.

Are you of the belief that Joseph of Arimethea started the Church in England? Even if true, he wasn't an apostle. And even so, that would mean that the Church of England is part of the Catholic Church. Remember "Roman" was a designation begun when the Church of England broke from the Catholic Church...Regardless of whether it's commonly used today. People often say oft-en, even though it's not correct.

 

[Albion]

The real question is who was the first bishop of Rome to be given a universal office? That's Peter, and upon this Rock Jesus built his Church.

As I'm sure you know, that is a theory that would be true only in hindsight. No one in Peter's time, nor Peter himself, thought of anything like Papal Supremacy or Infallibility. So obviously, it was a later Pope (Leo the Great?) who first adopted the claim that Peter was all that you say. This is why I put the development of the Roman Church--as opposed to the other parts of the Christian church, especially in the East--at about that time. Other posters have identified other events in the history of the Church which, to them, represented the de facto break from the rest of Christianity, but this one was the one that got my vote.

And even so, that would mean that the Church of England is part of the Catholic Church.

Of course it was and is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but it clearly was not part of the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Rome or its bishop until the Middle Ages.

In any case, this is not relevant to the thread. What may be more important, it isn't parallel to the history of the Roman Church since there is nothing distinctive about the English Church's doctrines or practices that could be divisive of unity with other parts of the church catholic...as there is with almost every other communion or denomination. There isn't a distinctively Anglican doctrine that shakes the possibility of unity with the rest of the church, as, for example, Papal Supremacy was.

 

[Standing Up]

As I'm sure you know, that is a theory that would be true only in hindsight. No one in Peter's time, nor Peter himself, thought of anything like Papal Supremacy or Infallibility. So obviously, it was a later Pope (Leo the Great?) who first adopted the claim that Peter was all that you say. This is why I put the development of the Roman Church--as opposed to the other parts of the Christian church, especially in the East--at about that time. Other posters have identified other events in the history of the Church which, to them, represented the de facto break from the rest of Christianity, but this one was the one that got my vote.


Of course it was and is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but it clearly was not part of the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Rome or its bishop until the Middle Ages.

In any case, this is not relevant to the thread. What may be more important, it isn't parallel to the history of the Roman Church since there is nothing distinctive about the English Church's doctrines or practices that could be divisive of unity with other parts of the church catholic...as there is with almost every other communion or denomination. There isn't a distinctively Anglican doctrine that shakes the possibility of unity with the rest of the church, as, for example, Papal Supremacy was.

Right. We know from Peter himself (1 Peter 5:1-3) that he called the elders (plural) of Asia Minor and passed the same instructions from Christ (feed His sheep) to them.

But still, where did that unique, sole Roman 'universal jurisdiction' lordship over the church arise?

Nicholas I
Leo the Great
Victor c195
Anicetus c155

They all exhibit the same tendency to attempt to rule over the flock of God.

PS. You may find NewAdvent about Victor of interest on sequentes
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Victor I

 

[Rhamiel]

Probably slightly older than the church at Rome, but possibly a few years younger.

you view your church as being ancient and contiguous

I view mine as being the same
if I thought you were right about your church, I would be an Anglican
if you thought I was right about my church, you would be a Roman Catholic

this is not "history"
we are both viewing history through a lens of our own theology

I assume when you say "the Church at Rome" you mean the one set up by the Apostles? as you have been differentiating between the "Church at Rome" and the "Roman Catholic Church" this entire thread?

 

[bbbbbbb]

you view your church as being ancient and contiguous

I view mine as being the same
if I thought you were right about your church, I would be an Anglican
if you thought I was right about my church, you would be a Roman Catholic

this is not "history"
we are both viewing history through a lens of our own theology

I assume when you say "the Church at Rome" you mean the one set up by the Apostles? as you have been differentiating between the "Church at Rome" and the "Roman Catholic Church" this entire thread?

I perceive a distinct difference between you and Albion. Catholics put their blinders on when it comes to other denominations and assert (wrongfully and blindly IMO) that they and they alone are the ONE, TRUE, CATHOLIC CHURCH and those other folks, well, just really don't matter in the final analysis.

Anglicans, along with virtually all other orthodox Christian denominations do not make any such assertions, but recognize themselves as branches rooted to the vine, who is Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

you view your church as being ancient and contiguous

I view mine as being the same
if I thought you were right about your church, I would be an Anglican
if you thought I was right about my church, you would be a Roman Catholic

this is not "history"
we are both viewing history through a lens of our own theology

No, that's not the case. I don't say that out of hand just to be difficult, but it's a fact that the Roman Catholic Church has a set of doctrines that no other (or almost no other) church holds to, and which have demonstrably, definitely, caused fractures in the universal church. Meanwhile, it's true what I said about Anglicanism. There is just about nothing that is unique--doctrine wise--in Anglicanism which could cause such a rupture. Nor are we as pivotal or critical to church unity as your church, the largest denomination in the world.

I assume when you say "the Church at Rome" you mean the one set up by the Apostles?

I meant the church at Rome. It doesn't matter who set it up (although we of course attribute that to Peter and Paul, just as other Apostles founded other churches elsewhere).

 

[Albion]

Right. We know from Peter himself (1 Peter 5:1-3) that he called the elders (plural) of Asia Minor and passed the same instructions from Christ (feed His sheep) to them.

But still, where did that unique, sole Roman 'universal jurisdiction' lordship over the church arise?

Nicholas I
Leo the Great
Victor c195
Anicetus c155

They all exhibit the same tendency to attempt to rule over the flock of God.

PS. You may find NewAdvent about Victor of interest on sequentes
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Victor I

It might be important for us, then to decide which of these most effectively promoted that doctrine (or who was first to be effective at it). I figured Leo, and I don't think it would be Anicetus or VIctor, but I'd be interested in hearing some other opinions.

 

[Standing Up]

It might be important for us, then to decide which of these most effectively promoted that doctrine (or who was first to be effective at it). I figured Leo, and I don't think it would be Anicetus or VIctor, but I'd be interested in hearing some other opinions.

155ad Anicetus rejected Polycarp's apostolic teaching for presbyter teaching (Irenaeus).

195ad Victor attempted to excommunicate 1/2 the church over the same issue (Eusebius).

I understand folks like to think Rome's authority developed over time and was implemented by Leo or Nicholas. But the lordship attitude over all the church existed nearly from the beginning.

 

[Albion]

155ad Anicetus rejected Polycarp's apostolic teaching for presbyter teaching (Irenaeus).

195ad Victor attempted to excommunicate 1/2 the church over the same issue (Eusebius).

I understand folks like to think Rome's authority developed over time and was implemented by Leo or Nicholas. But the lordship attitude over all the church existed nearly from the beginning.

Don't think that that would put much distance between the churches under the Roman bishop from those governed by any of the Eastern Patriarchs, though. So, once again, it's a matter of what separated the Roman Catholic Church from the others.

 

[Rhamiel]

No, that's not the case. I don't say that out of hand just to be difficult, but it's a fact that the Roman Catholic Church has a set of doctrines that no other (or almost no other) church holds to, and which have demonstrably, definitely, caused fractures in the universal church. Meanwhile, it's true what I said about Anglicanism. There is just about nothing that is unique--doctrine wise--in Anglicanism which could cause such a rupture. Nor are we as pivotal or critical to church unity as your church, the largest denomination in the world.

I am sure that people in other denominations would argue with you about how divisive the Anglican Church.
for example, does not the Anglican Church hold to a more traditional view of the sacraments? people who follow a "believers only" baptism would argue against the baptism of children
or those who are against the use of alcohol would find your church too liberal.... ect ect ect, every denomination has something that others do not agree with, that is the reason there are so many denominations.

and I do not say what I say just to be difficult or to "toe the company line" so to speak
I believe that my church is ancient, so any argument that is set up to the contrary, I am inclined to disagree with

 

[Albion]

I am sure that people in other denominations would argue with you about how divisive the Anglican Church.

They've tried every way imaginable to denigrate my church, but there's no way that the Church in England could be described as having split the undivided church of the first millennium, especially since it was so remote for most of that time that it had extremely little contract with the churches of the Mediterranean area and the people themselves are recorded by historians as having no interest in the goings-on in Rome and environs. An argument like that would be akin to blaming the Thomasites in India or the church in Armenia for fracturing the unity of Christendom by something one of these supposedly did.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wow, such evidence--your memory of secondary school.

Meanwhile I taught that history and religion IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL for a career. I think that says all that's necessary.

I would bet that you didn't teach that the Anglican Church came into being before the Catholic Church...If you did, and it was known, I'd be sure you didn't hold that post...

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, no. We all are aware that the church is known by the marks "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." The fact that one denomination uses one of those four terms as part of its name is commonly misunderstood by both members and non-members to mean that the early church was that denomination. Plus, any writer or speaker who uses the wording is liable to being misunderstood because people want to think in black or white terms and often miss the gray areas, or else they see everything through the eyes of today's understandings, not the way people in another era perceived things. But, BTW, we also have denominations that use one of the other three...and their members will argue up and down that this "proves" that the non-denominational church of the first century was actually their denomination. "Just look at the word," they say with confidence. LOL.


You've accepted the claim of that denomination. I'm sure that if you were a Mormon, you'd believe just as strongly that the true church apostasized, only to be restored in the 1820s, or if you were a member of some Baptist denominations you'd be telling me that "it's "history" that the first Christians were Baptists and that there is an unbroken Apostolic Succession connecting them to that church today.

Having been many forms of Protestant, that don't emphasize ancient history, it didn't matter. But when you study history, as I have on my journey into the Church, it's fairly easy to see. Jesus instituted the Church and said that it would never fall to Satan. That's the Church I belong to. No denomination.

 

[Root of Jesse]

They've tried every way imaginable to denigrate my church, but there's no way that the Church in England could be described as having split the undivided church of the first millennium, especially since it was so remote for most of that time that it had extremely little contract with the churches of the Mediterranean area and the people themselves are recorded by historians as having no interest in the goings-on in Rome and environs. An argument like that would be akin to blaming the Thomasites in India or the church in Armenia for fracturing the unity of Christendom by something one of these supposedly did.

No, that split happened much later. We know that. Henry and his search for an heir. Poor Henry...

 

[Standing Up]

Don't think that that would put much distance between the churches under the Roman bishop from those governed by any of the Eastern Patriarchs, though. So, once again, it's a matter of what separated the Roman Catholic Church from the others.

The earliest issue is precisely the same situation as all of the subsequent divisions, however.

Death, burial, resurrection (Passover) (115-195)
Filioque (1054)
Leo (451) saying/doing?
Mariology (4 dogmas, latest 1952?)
Roman bishop vs counciliar (Nicholas I c850)
Heretical baptism (225)
Unam sanctum (1302)

The papacy, (aka Rome's lordship), has been present in each of these historical situations as Rome attempts to wrest control over salvific issues for believers. In each instance, Rome distanced itself from the historical church.

As you know, since Vat II, Rome is now attempting to reverse course and to woo various churches back under its arms. But the same lordship (non-apostolic, scriptural) situation is intact.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The earliest issue is precisely the same situation as all of the subsequent divisions, however.

Death, burial, resurrection (Passover) (115-195)
Filioque (1054)
Leo (451) saying/doing?
Mariology (4 dogmas, latest 1952?)
Roman bishop vs counciliar (Nicholas I c850)
Heretical baptism (225)
Unam sanctum (1302)

The papacy, (aka Rome's lordship), has been present in each of these historical situations as Rome attempts to wrest control over salvific issues for believers. In each instance, Rome distanced itself from the historical church.

As you know, since Vat II, Rome is now attempting to reverse course and to woo various churches back under its arms. But the same lordship (non-apostolic, scriptural) situation is intact.

Vatican II did no such thing, and the 'product of Vatican II', AKA the spirit of Vatican II did no such thing. Ecumenism has always been a part of the Church. There is only one Church, and the Church desires that all the sheep be in the flock.

 

[Hentenza]

Vatican II did no such thing, and the 'product of Vatican II', AKA the spirit of Vatican II did no such thing. Ecumenism has always been a part of the Church. There is only one Church, and the Church desires that all the sheep be in the flock.

All of the sheep are in the flock. Your church is part of the flock , just not THE church.

ETA: Vatican II was not ecumenical and only applies to your church. It is not binding for any other church.

 

[Erose]

All of the sheep are in the flock. Your church is part of the flock , just not THE church.

ETA: Vatican II was not ecumenical and only applies to your church. It is not binding for any other church.

For a council to be ecumenical, it doesn't require heretical sects to be involved, nor does it require all bishops to be involved either. I do not think there has ever been a council were all bishops were present.