The church in Rome

[Xeno.of.athens]

When I find myself having to repeat my statements I believe it takes this from a conversation to a theological soliloquy.

It has to be [give]five and take. If you are ever open to that concept, we can re-engage, until then it is a useless venture.

Nearly all of your statements are either unsubstantiated or fantasies; and this thread is about the Church in Rome that the scriptures attest to having been established before saint Paul wrote Romans - probably in the late 30s AD or early 40s AD as establishment date.

 

[tampasteve]

There are more than 30,000 different Protestant denominations. Their doctrines and dogmas develop over time, too.

My point is/was that the OP stated "Many things in apostolic tradition take time to develop", the Protestant denominations you mention would not see their doctrines and dogmas as developing over time, but rather they are accurate reflections of scripture on how the Church should look/work.

*let me state that I know all Protestants are not like that, some value Tradition as well, in particular the Anglicans and their offshoots as well as many Lutherans, among others.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My point is/was that the OP stated "Many things in apostolic tradition take time to develop", the Protestant denominations you mention would not see their doctrines and dogmas as developing over time, but rather they are accurate reflections of scripture on how the Church should look/work.

Except that the early church didn't look anything like a local Baptist church; the early church had liturgy, it had the holy eucharist, it had systematic church discipline, it had bishops, elders, deacons, it had few buildings but when it had them they were not shop fronts nor warehouses nor bare undecorated spaces, they had paintings, mosaics, probably carvings, crosses, and other decorations consistent with Catholic and Orthodox practises today.

 

[tampasteve]

Except that the early church didn't look anything like a local Baptist church; the early church had liturgy, it had the holy eucharist, it had systematic church discipline, it had bishops, elders, deacons, it had few buildings but when it had them they were not shop fronts nor warehouses nor bare undecorated spaces, they had paintings, mosaics, probably carvings, crosses, and other decorations consistent with Catholic and Orthodox practises today.

None of that is really doctine and/or dogma (although practices can reflect it, such as having or not having Holy Eucharist). There are parishes with varying degrees of decoration or what is or is not allowed in most denominations.

The point is that they don't see their doctrine and dogma as developing over time, in contrast to your statement.

Again, for clarity, I don't agree with their idea myself.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

None of that is really doctine and/or dogma (although practices can reflect it, such as having or not having Holy Eucharist). There are parishes with varying degrees of decoration or what is or is not allowed in most denominations.

The point is that they don't see their doctrine and dogma as developing over time, in contrast to your statement.

Again, for clarity, I don't agree with their idea myself.

What they "see" and what is true differ in many cases. And the liturgy is doctrine and dogma, it is the source of a great deal of the church's life of faith and it forms many of the church's doctrines and dogmas because what one does as worship speaks loudly about what one believes as truth.

 

[tampasteve]

What they "see" and what is true differ in many cases.

Well, sure, that is kind of the whole discussion. But what I am getting at is that you explicitly stated that the doctrine and dogma develop over time - this is a very large stumbling block for many Protestants to overcome - since they believe their doctrines and dogma are firmly based in scripture and did not develop over time. The "developments" are seen as corruptions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, sure, that is kind of the whole discussion. But what I am getting at is that you explicitly stated that the doctrine and dogma develop over time - this is a very large stumbling block for many Protestants to overcome - since they believe their doctrines and dogma are firmly based in scripture and did not develop over time. The "developments" are seen as corruptions.

Yes, that is the case, but can one really go through life believing such fanciful things and not at least notice the inconsistencies; for example, how can a Baptist not notice the hymn books and overhead slides that they use and that those things are full of hymns and choruses are dated from the last 200 years? Can such a person fail to notice the lack of church councils in their denomination which is so unlike the one in Acts 15? And can people really read the gospels and walk away truly believing that Jesus meant to say this represents my body and this represents my blood of the new covenant? Honestly, it does not seem possible.

 

[tampasteve]

Honestly, it does not seem possible.

I can see how that seems from a Catholic perspective, having been on that side as well. From the Protestant perspective many of those statements can be turned around. I appreciate the dialogue, but I think it is probably out of the scope of your thread to really delve into each of these.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can see how that seems from a Catholic perspective, having been on that side as well. From the Protestant perspective many of those statements can be turned around. I appreciate the dialogue, but I think it is probably out of the scope of your thread to really delve into each of these.

Agreed, this thread is here just to make it clear that the Church in Rome is ancient, not a product of emperor Constantine. Yet many protestants, mainly from conservative evangelical style independent and Baptist churches, believe that the Catholic Church was invented in the 5th or 4th century AD. The name "Catholic" goes back to the first century too, as is attested by Ignatius of Antioch.

---

The term “Catholic Church” was first used by Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, written around 110 AD1. He used the term “Catholic” to describe the universal nature of the Christian Church. The word “Catholic” comes from the Greek word “katholikos,” which means “universal” 1.

 

[PloverWing]

And also from the sound of it in Mesopotamia as well, since technically that region is not part of the Mediterranean or the Levant.

I was including Mesopotamia in the Mediterranean region, but having looked more closely at a map, I accept the correction.

 

[The Liturgist]

I was including Mesopotamia in the Mediterranean region, but having looked more closely at a map, I accept the correction.

Forgive me, I’m known for being one of the more pedantic members of CF.com. Recall my reticence to refer to any bishop of Rome prior to the 530s as Pope, since they did not use that title, or likewise any bishop of Alexandria from the first or second century for the same reason.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Forgive me, I’m known for being one of the more pedantic members of CF.com. Recall my reticence to refer to any bishop of Rome prior to the 530s as Pope, since they did not use that title, or likewise any bishop of Alexandria from the first or second century for the same reason.

The title of pope, meaning "father", was originally given to any bishop in the West and to the patriarch of Alexandria 1 2. The first bishop of Rome to be contemporaneously referred to as pope is Damasus I (366–84) 3. However, the title was restricted to the bishop of Rome by Pope Gregory VII in 1073, confirming a practice that had existed since the 9th century 1. The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century 4.

 

[The Liturgist]

The title of pope, meaning "father", was originally given to any bishop in the West and to the patriarch of Alexandria 1 2. The first bishop of Rome to be contemporaneously referred to as pope is Damasus I (366–84) 3. However, the title was restricted to the bishop of Rome by Pope Gregory VII in 1073, confirming a practice that had existed since the 9th century 1. The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century 4.

Indeed but St. Damasus did not refer to himself as Papem. Additionally, the title remains in use by the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox churches of Alexandria, who were not subject to the injunction of Pope Gregory VII of Rome (and would not be even if it had not been for the Great Schism and the Chalcedonian Schism respectively, because Alexandria is guaranteed autocephalous status, that is to say, the same rights and privileges as the Roman patriarchate, in Canon VI of Nicaea).

 

[RileyG]

My point is/was that the OP stated "Many things in apostolic tradition take time to develop", the Protestant denominations you mention would not see their doctrines and dogmas as developing over time, but rather they are accurate reflections of scripture on how the Church should look/work.

*let me state that I know all Protestants are not like that, some value Tradition as well, in particular the Anglicans and their offshoots as well as many Lutherans, among others.

Thank you.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Nearly all of your statements are either unsubstantiated or fantasies; and this thread is about the Church in Rome that the scriptures attest to having been established before saint Paul wrote Romans - probably in the late 30s AD or early 40s AD as establishment date.

I can say the exact same thing about yours because they are not based on Scripture.

And there were the other churches Paul wrote to in the same time period. The Scriptures attest to a total of 15 churches by name.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can say the exact same thing about yours because they are not based on Scripture.

Except that the original post draws its content from saint Paul's letter to the Romans, which surely is a part of the New Testament and thus a part of Holy Scripture, right?

Romans 1:1 It is Paul who writes; a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be his apostle, and set apart to preach the gospel of God.

2 That gospel, promised long ago by means of his prophets in the holy scriptures,​

3 tells us of his Son, descended, in respect of his human birth, from the line of David,​

4 but, in respect of the sanctified spirit that was his, marked out miraculously as the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead; our Lord Jesus Christ.​

5 It is through him we have received the grace of apostleship; all over the world, men must be taught to honour his name by paying him the homage of their faith,​

6 and you among them, you, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.​

7 I wish, to all those at Rome whom God loves and has called to be holy, grace and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.​

8 And first, I offer thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, you whose faith is so renowned throughout the world.​

 

[BNR32FAN]

Some entertain the idea that the Catholic Church centred in Rome arose in the 4th century or later, but I think that the New Testament testified to a much earlier start. Saint Paul wrote a letter To The Romans which is the longest of his letters to the churches of his time.

It is thought by many scholars that saint Paul wrote to the Romans sometime around the time he was in Corinth on one of his missionary journeys. That places it around the middle 50s AD. And, of course, saint Paul would not be writing to Rome's Christians if they were not already a church with a reputation, which he mentions in chapter one of his letter. So, the best guess for the establishment of the church in Rome would be shortly after the sermon in Acts chapter two. Or around the mid or later 30s AD.

Saint Paul wrote, "And first, I offer thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, you whose faith is so renowned throughout the world." Romans 1:8.

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.

The church inRome was definitely established by the apostles, I don’t see how anyone could possibly refute that fact.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The apostles were setting up churches everywhere, that's what they were commissioned to do and to observe everything God commanded. There is no scripture that connects Paul to being catholic or any of the apostles. I see a lot of variances between the teachings of the catholic church and what the apostles taught and observed.

All of the apostolic church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD and 170AD. In 107AD Ignatius referred to the church of God as being Catholic (universal) in nature in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans. He still referred to the church by name as the Church of God in his opening statements but Iranaeus actually mentions the church by name as the Catholic Church in his writing Adversus Haereses written in 170AD. So it appears that some time between those two writings is when the church adopted the name Catholic.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All of the apostolic church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD and 170AD. In 107AD Ignatius referred to the church of God as being Catholic (universal) in nature in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans. He still referred to the church by name as the Church of God in his opening statements but Iranaeus actually mentions the church by name as the Catholic Church in his writing Adversus Haereses written in 170AD. So it appears that some time between those two writings is when the church adopted the name Catholic.

It is likely that the people in the congregations were talking about the catholic church before anybody wrote the word because it is usual for written records to follow common use after common use is already established.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The gospel was to be spread everywhere. There is no scripture that says the Pope is the successor to the apostles. Nothing about the apostles being Catholic. I noticed you didn't quote scripture to make this case either, which is what we should be following.

You don’t believe the apostolic church of God is “universal”? The scriptures don’t give evidence of this?