Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,519
55,215
Woods
✟4,585,734.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive.

In his famous review of Leopold von Ranke's History of the Popes, Thomas Babington Macaulay, the great Victorian essayist, launches into a purple passage that Catholic students once knew by heart. It is one of the great set pieces of English writing. In it he voices the opinion that there is no subject more worthy of study than the Roman Catholic Church. "The history of that Church," he writes, "joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon.... The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs."

Macaulay keeps laying it on, awestruck by the Church's perdurance through the centuries. The rhetorical excess is particularly striking coming from an agnostic who regarded history as a steady climb from religious obscurantism to secular enlightenment. But Macaulay's point is always worth making: No institution in history is remotely comparable to the Catholic Church. It is a subject that well repays study. And yet most Catholics know very little about their own history.

This is unfortunate for many reasons, but especially today, when a dinner-party conversation can suddenly turn to some specious best-seller that presumes to rewrite Church history. The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive. But most Catholics have no idea how to respond, and more than a few take these books and documentaries at face value. After all, they have the imprimatur of the History Channel or a large publishing house like Doubleday.

The new wave of anti-Catholic "scholarship" predictably revisits hot-button topics like the Inquisition and Galileo; but increasingly its focus is on the first centuries of Christianity. Its object is to make the early Church look like a bad mistake, a betrayal of Jesus' intentions, a conspiracy of dead white males obsessed with controlling their followers and, even worse, putting a lid on everyone's sexual fulfillment. Post-apostolic Christianity is portrayed as elitist, anti-feminist, and intent on mindless conformity — in contrast, say, to the second-century Gnostics, who apparently were as sexually enlightened as any modern professor who contributes to the Jesus Seminar.

The media have a sharp appetite for this recycling of 19th-century, anti-clerical scholarship, and so books by scholars like Gary Wills and Elaine Pagels get maximum exposure. And then there is The Da Vinci Code, which has sold a staggering nine million copies. Both the New York Times and National Public Radio seem to think that it is based on historical fact. Even its author appears to think so. But a book that claims that Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ until the fourth century, that a Roman emperor chose the four Gospels, that the Church executed five million witches, and that Opus Dei has monks is obviously little more than a farrago of nonsense.

Continued-
Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church
 

epostle

Active Member
Oct 29, 2019
90
32
72
Hamilton
✟23,277.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive.

In his famous review of Leopold von Ranke's History of the Popes, Thomas Babington Macaulay, the great Victorian essayist, launches into a purple passage that Catholic students once knew by heart. It is one of the great set pieces of English writing. In it he voices the opinion that there is no subject more worthy of study than the Roman Catholic Church. "The history of that Church," he writes, "joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon.... The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs."

Macaulay keeps laying it on, awestruck by the Church's perdurance through the centuries. The rhetorical excess is particularly striking coming from an agnostic who regarded history as a steady climb from religious obscurantism to secular enlightenment. But Macaulay's point is always worth making: No institution in history is remotely comparable to the Catholic Church. It is a subject that well repays study. And yet most Catholics know very little about their own history.

This is unfortunate for many reasons, but especially today, when a dinner-party conversation can suddenly turn to some specious best-seller that presumes to rewrite Church history. The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive. But most Catholics have no idea how to respond, and more than a few take these books and documentaries at face value. After all, they have the imprimatur of the History Channel or a large publishing house like Doubleday.

The new wave of anti-Catholic "scholarship" predictably revisits hot-button topics like the Inquisition and Galileo; but increasingly its focus is on the first centuries of Christianity. Its object is to make the early Church look like a bad mistake, a betrayal of Jesus' intentions, a conspiracy of dead white males obsessed with controlling their followers and, even worse, putting a lid on everyone's sexual fulfillment. Post-apostolic Christianity is portrayed as elitist, anti-feminist, and intent on mindless conformity — in contrast, say, to the second-century Gnostics, who apparently were as sexually enlightened as any modern professor who contributes to the Jesus Seminar.

The media have a sharp appetite for this recycling of 19th-century, anti-clerical scholarship, and so books by scholars like Gary Wills and Elaine Pagels get maximum exposure. And then there is The Da Vinci Code, which has sold a staggering nine million copies. Both the New York Times and National Public Radio seem to think that it is based on historical fact. Even its author appears to think so. But a book that claims that Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ until the fourth century, that a Roman emperor chose the four Gospels, that the Church executed five million witches, and that Opus Dei has monks is obviously little more than a farrago of nonsense.

Continued-
Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church
51LAbRH5nsL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


good review here

Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity, is not a Catholic so one cannot argue doctrinal bias.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
51LAbRH5nsL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


good review here

Rodney Stark, one of the most highly regarded sociologists of religion and bestselling author of The Rise of Christianity, is not a Catholic so one cannot argue doctrinal bias.

I always enjoy these sorts of discussions. My church is the oldest church on the planet because yours schismed from ours - nah, nah, nah. Therefore, because we are the oldest and the best, we alone possess all TRUTH!
 
Upvote 0

epostle

Active Member
Oct 29, 2019
90
32
72
Hamilton
✟23,277.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I always enjoy these sorts of discussions. My church is the oldest church on the planet because yours schismed from ours - nah, nah, nah. Therefore, because we are the oldest and the best, we alone possess all TRUTH!
But we are not the only church with truths. Even the CC says so. See CCC817-820.
Truth cannot be possessed.
The world, in general, harbor a distinct fear of the truth. This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:

1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom.

These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to lean the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment.

The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.

And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.

But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth.

Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

By Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College at U. of Waterloo, he is married with 5 children.

Taken from The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3, with minor editing by me.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
But we are not the only church with truths. Even the CC says so. See CCC817-820.
Truth cannot be possessed.
The world, in general, harbor a distinct fear of the truth. This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:

1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom.

These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to lean the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment.

The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.

And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.

But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth.

Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

By Dr. Donald DeMarco, Professor of Philosophy, St. Jerome’s College at U. of Waterloo, he is married with 5 children.

Taken from The Bread of Life Magazine, July / Aug. Volume 26 Number 3, with minor editing by me.

Of course, your church believes and teaches that other churches have (some) truths in them, in that other churches teach and believe some of the same things your church does. However, the Catholic Church boasts that it and it alone has the fullness of salvation.

The point, however, is not about truth at all. It is about age. The argument is that because a particular denomination is older than another it, perforce, must be the better of the two and if one denomination lays claim to being the oldest of them all, it is the one and only TRUE CHURCH.
 
Upvote 0

epostle

Active Member
Oct 29, 2019
90
32
72
Hamilton
✟23,277.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Of course, your church believes and teaches that other churches have (some) truths in them, in that other churches teach and believe some of the same things your church does. However, the Catholic Church boasts that it and it alone has the fullness of salvation.
It is best equipped to lead people into the fulness of salvation.
The point, however, is not about truth at all. It is about age. The argument is that because a particular denomination is older than another it, perforce, must be the better of the two and if one denomination lays claim to being the oldest of them all, it is the one and only TRUE CHURCH.
It IS about the truth. Age has never been the primary argument, although it is a hard undeniable fact. What we boast about is the essence of truths revealed by Jesus and the Apostles, written and oral, ARE DIVINELY PRESERVED, so lets have a proper perspective of "age".

The CC didn't separate from anyone. There are many indications in Scripture that the Church, the Catholic Church, is infallible and indestructible. To say otherwise is to go against the Bible. Your best option is to change the biblical/historical meaning of "church", beginning with Ephesians 3:10. You speak a different language. See post #5.
We don't want you to feel inferior, we want you to lower your prejudice and make honest inquiries, as opposed to the same boring arguments that have been refuted over and over again. Rarely, if ever, are official teachings of the last 20 years challenged because you guys can't escape from 16th century politics.

But this thread is about the ancient Catholic Church, not recent teachings and not the Protestant Revolt. The thread is about the first 4 centuries when the Bible as we know it did not exist. History proves time and time again, that the early Christians were Catholic in practice and belief. Though then underdeveloped, the essence of truths have never changed. Let's get back on topic, shall we?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It IS about the truth. Age has never been the primary argument, although it is a hard undeniable fact. The CC didn't separate from anyone. There are many indications in Scripture that the Church, the Catholic Church, is infallible and indestructible. To say otherwise is to go against the Bible. Your best option is to change the biblical/historical meaning of "church", beginning with Ephesians 3:10. You speak a different language. See post #5.
We don't want you to feel inferior, we want you to lower your prejudice and make honest inquiries, as opposed to the same boring arguments that have been refuted over and over again. Rarely, if ever, are official teachings of the last 20 years challenged because you guys can't escape from 16th century politics.

But this thread is about the ancient Catholic Church, not recent teachings and not the so called reformation. The thread is about the first 4 centuries when the bible as we know it did not exist.

Hmmmm. I have read my Bible multiple times but have not yet come across any passages informing me that a religious organization headquartered in Rome, Italy is infallible and indestructible. Perhaps you have a better translation of the holy scriptures and can enlighten me further.

On another point, your fellow-brethren among the Traditional Churches probably do not agree with you that the CC didn't separate from anyone.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

epostle

Active Member
Oct 29, 2019
90
32
72
Hamilton
✟23,277.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Hmmmm. I have read my Bible multiple times but have not yet come across any passages informing me that a religious organization headquartered in Rome, Italy is infallible and indestructible. Perhaps you have a better translation of the holy scriptures and can enlighten me further.
After the martyrdom of James, centrality of the Christian/Catholic Church shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history from the Bible alone, but you do it anyway. That's why you ignore the writings of the Early Church Fathers and make room for fairy tales.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
On another point, your fellow-brethren among the Traditional Churches probably do not agree with you that the CC didn't separate from anyone.
A red herring and off topic.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
We are discussing the ancient Catholic Church that the Orthodox agree on, not off topic schisms.
After the martyrdom of James, centrality of the Christian/Catholic Church shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history from the Bible alone, but you do it anyway. That's why you ignore the writings of the Early Church Fathers and make room for fairy tales.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker
A red herring and off topic.

Unfortunately, our Orthodox (Eastern as well as Oriental) friends are equally guilty of "ignor(ing) the writings of the Early Church Fathers and mak(ing) room for fairy tales." It seems to me that they claim the very same ECF's that the Roman Catholics do and they also have a solid "fairy tale" using the same sources that you do. Why should I believe your "fairy tale" versus their "fairy tale"?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
After the martyrdom of James, centrality of the Christian/Catholic Church shifted from Jerusalem to Rome.
Which is not an argument that supports the idea of a Papacy.

This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

No disagreement there, but you are mistaking the prominence of the city of Rome for some assumed recognition of the administrative supremacy of its bishop.

Rome was the seat of government, the fabled "Eternal City," the diocese was the wealthiest in the Empire, and it of course also benefitted from the historical luster of having had both Peter and Paul living there. Any Bishop of Rome would have been influential, simply because they were the bishops of ROME!
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Which is not an argument that supports the idea of a Papacy.


No disagreement there, but you are mistaking the prominence of the city of Rome for some assumed recognition of the administrative supremacy of its bishop.

Rome was the seat of government, the fabled "Eternal City," the diocese was the wealthiest in the Empire, and it of course also benefitted from the historical luster of having had both Peter and Paul living there. Any Bishop of Rome would have been influential, simply because they were the bishops of ROME!

We also have Constantinople in the picture which became the new seat of the Empire after Constantine moved his court there. Thus, in Eastern Orthodoxy the Patriarch of Constantinople holds an exalted position, but not anything like that chap in Rome.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
We also have Constantinople in the picture which became the new seat of the Empire after Constantine moved his court there. Thus, in Eastern Orthodoxy the Patriarch of Constantinople holds an exalted position, but not anything like that chap in Rome.
Okay, but the more important point IMHO is that the Eastern bishops never did believe in a single, worldwide, spiritual ruler over the Christian churches, not before Constantine or after Constantine.

Naturally, this seldom is referred to when proponents of Papal Supremacy try to argue that the Bishop of Rome was supposedly the acknowledged head of the church going all the way back to the beginning.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Okay, but the more important point IMHO is that the Eastern bishops never did believe in a single, worldwide, spiritual ruler over the Christian churches, not before Constantine or after Constantine.

Naturally, this seldom is referred to when proponents of Papal Supremacy try to argue that the Bishop of Rome was supposedly the acknowledged head of the church going all the way back to the beginning.

Quite true, which was the point I attempted to make. All of the patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox church are equal and there is nothing in their organization that hints at the office of the Papacy that the Roman Catholic Church created for itself.
 
Upvote 0

epostle

Active Member
Oct 29, 2019
90
32
72
Hamilton
✟23,277.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Unfortunately, our Orthodox (Eastern as well as Oriental) friends are equally guilty of "ignor(ing) the writings of the Early Church Fathers and mak(ing) room for fairy tales." It seems to me that they claim the very same ECF's that the Roman Catholics do and they also have a solid "fairy tale" using the same sources that you do. Why should I believe your "fairy tale" versus their "fairy tale"?
Another red herring.
Which is not an argument that supports the idea of a Papacy.

No disagreement there, but you are mistaking the prominence of the city of Rome for some assumed recognition of the administrative supremacy of its bishop.
You are saying Ignatius was wrong...more denials.
Rome was the seat of government, the fabled "Eternal City," the diocese was the wealthiest in the Empire, and it of course also benefitted from the historical luster of having had both Peter and Paul living there. Any Bishop of Rome would have been influential, simply because they were the bishops of ROME!
How do you get "historical luster" when the first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans? Funny ho they knew who the pope was, but you just deny it.
Okay, but the more important point IMHO is that the Eastern bishops never did believe in a single, worldwide, spiritual ruler over the Christian churches, not before Constantine or after Constantine.
Anti-Catholic Myths and Lies: #1 Emperor Constantine Founded the Catholic Church
Naturally, this seldom is referred to when proponents of Papal Supremacy try to argue that the Bishop of Rome was supposedly the acknowledged head of the church going all the way back to the beginning.
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. That must be terrifying. That explains all the red herrings, rabbit holes and denials.

Quite true, which was the point I attempted to make. All of the patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox church are equal and there is nothing in their organization that hints at the office of the Papacy that the Roman Catholic Church created for itself.
Sorry pal, but that is a load of crap. More denials and a re-write of the facts.

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:
    • The Arian schisms (343-398)
    • The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
    • The Acacian schism (484-519)
    • Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
    • Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy
Scroll down to
A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
357-60 (Arian),
475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and
640-42 (Monothelite):
a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius — none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself.

The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige — the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical / anti-Catholic Orthodox stance assuredly cannot.

Let's get back to the topic of the ancient Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I didn't say anything about Constantine supposedly founding the Catholic Church .:rolleyes:

I also wondered how he came up with that from your post. I also note that he apparently does not understand that the office of the Papacy has never existed in any of the branches of Christianity and is purely a development of the Roman Catholic denomination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0