Upon this rock

[Standing Up]

What he was trying to say is that the Roman Church referred to by the ECF is specifically the church at Rome, aka the Church to which Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans. It is part of the Catholic church, or "the Church" as the ECF would say, but the Church was much, much larger than just the Roman Church.

Please provide your evidence for this, besides today's ideas. Centuries ago the idea of the church became known as the Roman Church. Prior to that, as you think, as Clement of Rome wrote, it was the church at Rome like church at Carthage like church at Smyrna, like church at Corinth, etc. Here's another example from Cyprian c240ad, besides Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Ambrose referring to her as the Roman Church.

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage.
As with you there is one mind and one voice, the whole Roman Church has confessed.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lvi.html

The "whole" Roman Church. To them, at that time, the "church" was the "Roman Church". Nowadays, not so much.

 

[Meowzltov]

Please provide your evidence for this, besides today's ideas. Centuries ago the idea of the church became known as the Roman Church. Prior to that, as you think, as Clement of Rome wrote, it was the church at Rome like church at Carthage like church at Smyrna, like church at Corinth, etc. Here's another example from Cyprian c240ad, besides Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Ambrose referring to her as the Roman Church.

On the contrary, you have agreed that at one time the "Church of Rome" was the Church AT Rome. It is therefore up to you to show that references to the Roman Church are not referring to the Church at Rome.

 

[Rick Otto]

...Because it is of utmost importance we conform on this.



lol

 

[Rick Otto]

You're not going to force anyone to refer to you as the sole universal Church anytime soon, so...

Maybe not, but the opportunity for neat slogans is irresistible:
"Upon this rock, we roll"

 

[Standing Up]

On the contrary, you have agreed that at one time the "Church of Rome" was the Church AT Rome. It is therefore up to you to show that references to the Roman Church are not referring to the Church at Rome.

Yes it was (for example, Clement of Rome says so), but the subsequent change (for example Cyprian, Augustine, etc) was to subsequently refer to the church at Antioch or church at Laodicea or church at Alexandria as the "whole Roman Church". Your job is to show it was then as you think it now. I've shown otherwise.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Standing Up]

Leo the Great c450ad believed in the Roman Church:

And if Eutyches had believed this intelligently and thoroughly, he would never have retreated from the path of this Faith. For Peter received this answer from the Lord for his confession. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church: and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it335335 S. Matt. xvi. 17, 18..” But he who both rejects the blessed Peter’s confession, and gainsays Christ’s Gospel, is far removed from union with this building; for he shows himself never to have had any zeal for understanding the Truth, and to have only the empty appearance of high esteem, who did not adorn the hoary hairs of old age with any ripe judgment of the heart.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xxxiii.html

 

[Meowzltov]

Leo the Great c450ad believed in the Roman Church:

And if Eutyches had believed this intelligently and thoroughly, he would never have retreated from the path of this Faith. For Peter received this answer from the Lord for his confession. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church: and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it335335 S. Matt. xvi. 17, 18..” But he who both rejects the blessed Peter’s confession, and gainsays Christ’s Gospel, is far removed from union with this building; for he shows himself never to have had any zeal for understanding the Truth, and to have only the empty appearance of high esteem, who did not adorn the hoary hairs of old age with any ripe judgment of the heart.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.xxxiii.html

I'm not sure what your quote is supposed to prove.

Leo of course was one of the Greatest Popes ever. He certainly believed in the Catholic Church. He also firmly believed in a central Papacy as he expected the entire Church to accept his Tome.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm not sure what your quote is supposed to prove.

Leo of course was one of the Greatest Popes ever. He certainly believed in the Catholic Church. He also firmly believed in a central Papacy as he expected the entire Church to accept his Tome.

Just trying to get back to the OP. Is Leo saying the confession is the rock or is Peter?

 

[Meowzltov]

Just trying to get back to the OP. Is Leo saying the confession is the rock or is Peter?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });

It was unclear from the quote.

 

[Root of Jesse]

...Because it is of utmost importance we conform on this.



lol

Rick, the problem is that a word, or group of words, which once was benign, became a slur at the reformation. Just as many don't like the term "Protestant", we don't like the reference Roman Church. But it is very true that the Church of Rome = the diocese of Rome = the Church at Rome. Just like the Archdiocese of New York could be referred to as the Church at New York or the Church of New York.
Regarding Protestant, I don't know any other way to refer to all those non-Catholic Christians...do you have anything?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes it was (for example, Clement of Rome says so), but the subsequent change (for example Cyprian, Augustine, etc) was to subsequently refer to the church at Antioch or church at Laodicea or church at Alexandria as the "whole Roman Church". Your job is to show it was then as you think it now. I've shown otherwise.

It became a slur when the Reformers used it as a slur. So we don't like it, and we do still consider it a slur, even if there are people who shrug their shoulders and accept the slur. It is not polite to slur people you want to dialog with, if that's what your intention is. If your intention is just to push Catholics away, and have dialog among yourselves, why not just say so???

 

[Breaking Enigma]

Rick, the problem is that a word, or group of words, which once was benign, became a slur at the reformation. Just as many don't like the term "Protestant", we don't like the reference Roman Church. But it is very true that the Church of Rome = the diocese of Rome = the Church at Rome. Just like the Archdiocese of New York could be referred to as the Church at New York or the Church of New York.
Regarding Protestant, I don't know any other way to refer to all those non-Catholic Christians...do you have anything?

Well, I have a suggestion for us Lutherans. We believe ourselves to be Catholic (I don't get into the large and small letter shenanigans). Or simply Lutheran. The best I'll grant you is the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, I have a suggestion for us Lutherans. We believe ourselves to be Catholic (I don't get into the large and small letter shenanigans). Or simply Lutheran. The best I'll grant you is the Roman Catholic Church.

Which doesn't exist. Even if many American Catholic Churches call themselves "Roman Catholic", it's to distinguish between Eastern Rite and us.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Rick, the problem is that a word, or group of words, which once was benign, became a slur at the reformation. Just as many don't like the term "Protestant", we don't like the reference Roman Church. But it is very true that the Church of Rome = the diocese of Rome = the Church at Rome. Just like the Archdiocese of New York could be referred to as the Church at New York or the Church of New York.
Regarding Protestant, I don't know any other way to refer to all those non-Catholic Christians...do you have anything?

The Second Vatican Council taught that non-Catholic Christians were to be recognized as “brothers” in light of their valid baptisms “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Some traditionalist Catholics look askance at this teaching, but it is worth noting that Saint Augustine also recognized that non-Catholic Christians who were baptized and recognized the resurrection of Christ were to be reckoned as “brothers.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-non-catholic-christians-as-brothers/

I guess that would translate into brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Second Vatican Council taught that non-Catholic Christians were to be recognized as “brothers” in light of their valid baptisms “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Yes, I know. We call them separated bretheren, as was the Prodigal Son.

Some traditionalist Catholics look askance at this teaching, but it is worth noting that Saint Augustine also recognized that non-Catholic Christians who were baptized and recognized the resurrection of Christ were to be reckoned as “brothers.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-non-catholic-christians-as-brothers/

The other difference is that Saint Augustine is here discussing the Donatist heresy – those ancient schismatics who in fact possessed all the sacraments validly. Since Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al. formally rejected transubstantiation, Eucharistic sacrifice, and the sacerdotal priesthood, Protestants do not possess a valid Eucharist since they have denied its essence and apostolic succession.

So I guess that would translate into brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes, that, too.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, I know. We call them separated bretheren, as was the Prodigal Son.

Sounds like a reference to paganism, eating with the pigs and all that connotates. Thanks

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sounds like a reference to paganism, eating with the pigs and all that connotates. Thanks

Nope, wasn't referring to him eating with pigs, just that he was separated from his father, and household.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Nope, wasn't referring to him eating with pigs, just that he was separated from his father, and household.

Where do you get that non RCC's or whoever your talking about as Protestants are separated from the Father?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where do you get that that's what I said? Although we're all separated from the Father...I said that he was separated from his father as our separated bretheren are from the Church.