The church in Rome

[tampasteve]

Many things in apostolic tradition take time to develop

And that is the problem most Protestants have.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That is not accurate - sorry you disagree.

I checked the map in the back of my Bible and between the province of Thrace and the province of Asia there is no city mentioned there. The closest is Troas. So I'm calling you on your map thing. Please post evidence that Constantinople existed a few hundred years before Constantine.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And that is the problem most Protestants have.

Yet protestants have no trouble with the development of doctrines in their own denominations.

 

[tampasteve]

Yet protestants have no trouble with the development of doctrines in their own denominations.

Most would say their doctrines can be based in scripture alone, not on Tradition, and they did not "develop" in the manner you mentioned. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point, but that would largely be the response. Perhaps outline a doctrine that you see developed within a denomination?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Most would say their doctrines can be based in scripture alone, not on Tradition, and they did not "develop" in the manner you mentioned. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the point, but that would largely be the response. Perhaps outline a doctrine that you see developed within a denomination?

I cannot believe that Pentecostals believe that first century Christians, and especially biblical passages about them, teach talking in "ecstatic tongues" yet they treat their own "tongues" as either angelic languages or ecstatic sounds rather than human languages.

 

[tampasteve]

I cannot believe that Pentecostals believe that first century Christians, and especially biblical passages about them, teach talking in "ecstatic tongues" yet they treat their own "tongues" as either angelic languages or ecstatic sounds rather than human languages.

That is exactly what they believe, from my understanding, using appropriate scripture to back up the idea. I don't agree with it at all, FWIW.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is exactly what they believe, from my understanding, using appropriate scripture to back up the idea. I don't agree with it at all, FWIW.

Yes, well, those on the outside have as much or more difficulty with Pentecostal claims than some have with infallibility claims for the pope.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I checked the map in the back of my Bible and between the province of Thrace and the province of Asia there is no city mentioned there. The closest is Troas. So I'm calling you on your map thing. Please post evidence that Constantinople existed a few hundred years before Constantine.

Maybe a third a time will help.

During the approximate fifty-year period between the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synod (325-381 AD), Constantinople evolves into a leading Church. This can be attested by the leading roles of the Bishops of Constantinople during the heresies concerning the Holy Trinity.

I think your misunderstanding comes from thinking I am referring only to first century. The church in Rome is one of 15 churches mentioned in scripture. There is no support for it being anything other than a church until the Fourth Century.

In A.D. 330, Constantinople became the site of Roman Emperor Constantine’s “New Rome,” a Christian city the center of this new found religion. Within 50 some years the seat of the church started in Rome, Italy being given the Vatican city as their own.

 

[mikeforjesus]

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have a common origin and we would rightly refer to the schism between us because we both have our origins in Jesus Christ. That is why we Catholics can and do accept all Orthodox sacraments as valid. We do not refer to the Orthodox as some newly created religion but as a temporarily separated part of the One Church. We do this if reciprocated or not reciprocated because it is true. We are eager for the schism to be resolved and in the meantime we accept their sacraments and the bulk of their teaching.

I don't even understand why anyone would argue about this. Rome is indisputably an apostolic see. The arguments you see among Catholics and Orthodox are about what follows from that (e.g., if Rome has 'universal jurisdiction', if Rome is 'infallible' in certain situations, etc.), not about the underlying basic fact that we all agree on.

You both have heard my beliefs and are rejecting it so if is true you are in danger but even if not it seems you have enmity towards other christians for their beliefs which you ought to accept those who do not judge and God will test your works if you do and if you do you will be punished for youse think youse can fight the truth not loving it so not loving the Son for who He is so fear God if you are to do don’t think yourselves that He is weak or that He approves of your way that He will pass away your offense. God hates the wise who seek to fight His gospel to take advantage of people meekness not to make strife and fight and to waste time that youse want the last word saying to be powerful to worship the image of another god to try to make him as though he is most powerful not true just God which is why all of you are in partner in practice to resemble all other religions in the image of an intruder god which is Satan.

maybe that is meaning of His saints being slain under the altar of their religion

 

[chevyontheriver]

You both have heard my beliefs and are rejecting it so if is true you are in danger ....

I honestly don't know WHAT you believe. I have not 'heard' your beliefs. And it's a tiny bit pompous to even suggest that by rejecting YOUR beliefs I put myself in any sort of danger with God. As if I did reject your beliefs, which I can't because I don't know what you believe.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Maybe a third a time will help.

Or not. Who knows.

During the approximate fifty-year period between the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synod (325-381 AD), Constantinople evolves into a leading Church. This can be attested by the leading roles of the Bishops of Constantinople during the heresies concerning the Holy Trinity.

Constantinople evolved into a leading Church. After Constantine set up the town as the new Imperial city. Sure. Fourth century.

I think your misunderstanding comes from thinking I am referring only to first century. The church in Rome is one of 15 churches mentioned in scripture. There is no support for it being anything other than a church until the Fourth Century.

If you ignore perhaps the canons of the council of Nicea, or ignore the listing of bishops in all of the Patriarchal Sees as recorded in Eusebius, maybe you could just possibly come to that conclusion with eyes tightly shut.

In A.D. 330, Constantinople became the site of Roman Emperor Constantine’s “New Rome,” a Christian city the center of this new found religion. Within 50 some years the seat of the church started in Rome, Italy being given the Vatican city as their own.

The bishop of Constantinople really wanted to consider himself important, more important than the Patriarchal Sees of Antioch and Alexandria and Rome (and Jerusalem later). Those were the four main Sees of the Christian faith. But now Constantinople was to be considered a fifth Patriarchal see, and their claim was that because the Emperor was there the bishop should be the most important bishop. New Rome was not only a civic term but a term the ecclesial establishment in Constantinople wanted to refer to themselves. We see this very thing later as the Moscow diocese claims to be a Patriarchal See as the new new Rome. They don't like at all the idea of being under the Patriarch of Constantinople. So they claim to have superseded Constantinople as the diocese of Constantinople claims to have superseded the Diocese of Rome. In reality the Patriarchs are equal, with the Patriarch of Rome considered in the Ecumenical councils to be 'first among equals'. That's just the documentation. Sometimes such language is tolerated by the modern Orthodox and sometimes they see the Catholic Church about the same way the LDS sees it. But there were four ancient Patriarchal Sees (Antioch and Rome and Alexandria and (a bit later) Jerusalem) and Constantinople got added later.

I suspect that can't fit your view of the origin of the Catholic faith. That's fine. History is stubborn that way.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If you ignore perhaps the canons of the council of Nicea, or ignore the listing of bishops in all of the Patriarchal Sees as recorded in Eusebius, maybe you could just possibly come to that conclusion with eyes tightly shut.

Are you speaking of the Council of Nicea in 325AD? Your own reference in fact supports my position. FYI - the same council that removed the Apocryphal books. Just an interesting pont

Or are you trying to disprove my statements:

During the approximate fifty-year period between the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synod (325-381 AD), Constantinople evolves into a leading Church. This can be attested by the leading roles of the Bishops of Constantinople during the heresies concerning the Holy Trinity.

In A.D. 330, Constantinople became the site of Roman Emperor Constantine’s “New Rome,” a Christian city the center of this new found religion. Within 50 some years the seat of the church started in Rome, Italy being given the Vatican city as their own.

By quoting items from 325?

I am not ignoring anything my friend.

 

[Lukaris]

The thing is the Church in Rome became an authority source early on when like the Gospel of John was written. There are matters of debate as to how much authority but it was early & genuine. There is an early post apostolic letter ( about 100 AD believed by most) of the Bishop Clement to the Church in Corinth. It was thought to be scripture by some although the letter makes no such claim itself.

First Clement

 

[chevyontheriver]

Are you speaking of the Council of Nicea in 325AD?

Yup.

Your own reference in fact supports my position.

Nope.

"FYI - the same council that removed the Apocryphal books. Just an interesting point"

Which canon of the Council of Nicea was that? I have the canons of the council in front of me.

Or are you trying to disprove my statements:

During the approximate fifty-year period between the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synod (325-381 AD), Constantinople evolves into a leading Church. This can be attested by the leading roles of the Bishops of Constantinople during the heresies concerning the Holy Trinity.

In A.D. 330, Constantinople became the site of Roman Emperor Constantine’s “New Rome,” a Christian city the center of this new found religion. Within 50 some years the seat of the church started in Rome, Italy being given the Vatican city as their own.
By quoting items from 325?

I am not ignoring anything my friend.

I’m just wondering how you handle canon six from the Council of Nicea and canon three from the Council of Constantinople?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yup.

Nope.


Which canon of the Council of Nicea was that? I have the canons of the council in front of me.


I’m just wondering how you handle canon six from the Council of Nicea and canon three from the Council of Constantinople?

And what of the records for the principal Sees of Christianity, that include the See of Rome from before there ever was a See of Constantinople?

One wonders where your alternate history comes from. Can you tell us?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Yup.

Nope.


Which canon of the Council of Nicea was that? I have the canons of the council in front of me.


I’m just wondering how you handle canon six from the Council of Nicea and canon three from the Council of Constantinople?

Right after you recognize we are speaking of the exact same time period.

 

[Always in His Presence]

One wonders where your alternate history comes from. Can you tell us?

From Iraneous, Pliny, Tragen, and the actual writings of the first 300 years of Christianity.

The only thing alternate about it is the fact is you have not been taught it.

 

[rturner76]

So, having set the record straight, we can move on from theories that claim that the Church of/in Rome was created centuries after Christ's earthly sojourn.

It didn't begin in Rome that's correct. However after Constantine asked for a compilation of the most important writings for Christians, the world's Bishops got together during the councils of Hippo and Carthage, Rome began to be the center of western Christianity especially after St Jeromes translations in The Latin Vulgate. Before that, the Bible had been written in Greek and Hebrew. As Rome expanded, so did Roman (or Latin Rite) Christianity.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Right after you recognize we are speaking of the exact same time period.

Not sure what that time period is when you speak of Constantinople before Constantine. Or are you now saying Constantinople only became a major See AFTER Constantine? THAT I could agree with.

I'm just not agreeing with you at all that the See of Rome was a nothingburger.

I'd love to hear from you about your interpretation of canon 6 of Nicea and canon 3 of Constantinople. AND your interpretation of how the Council of Nicea set a 66 book canon.

 

[chevyontheriver]

From Iraneous, Pliny, Tragen, and the actual writings of the first 300 years of Christianity.

The only thing alternate about it is the fact is you have not been taught it.

Tragen I don't know at all. Never heard of that dude. Just maybe you mean the emperor Trajan? He wrote one paragraph about Christians, and nothing at all about their locations. So not really relevant here I'd think. Correct me if I'm wrong. Or if you actually mean some guy named Tragen.

Iraneous, spelled Irenaeus, I know well. You can explain to me how he proves your point about the See of Rome being a nothingburger.

And Pliny too. He was governor of Bithynia et Pontus (now Turkey) and wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan. He new little about the See of Rome. Not a great primary source in support of your theory. Unless you can explain how what he wrote clinches your argument.

You don't know beans about my education. Yet you presume a lot. I usually think your posts are pretty good. On this though you have ... erm ... got some things crossed.