Surely by calling it "she" you mean to evoke the image of the Church has the Holy Mother Church, right?
Perhaps that is why so many non-RCs view the RCC/Rome as Babylon in Revelationrise from rome?
it was founded in rome by st.Peter and st.Paul
the first apostles to preach there
Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”..................
..............These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
I'm not Catholic, but perhaps cuz it was founded in Rome?
Another opinion (John Gill):Perhaps that is why so many non-RCs view the RCC/Rome as Babylon in Revelation
Rotherham) 1 Peter 5:13 She who, in Babylon, is co-elect, and Mark my son, salute you:
LittleLambofJesus said:Perhaps that is why so many non-RCs view the RCC/Rome as Babylon in Revelation
Rotherham) 1 Peter 5:13 She who, in Babylon, is co-elect, and Mark my son, salute you:
Greek NT - Textus Rec.) 1 Peter 5:13 aspazetai umaV h en babulwni suneklekth kai markoV o uioV mou
http://www.christianforums.com/t7336954-10/#post50410964
What is the evidence of Peter in Rome
steve_bakr said:The correct description is the Catholic Church, Roman Rite. I was told this by the Deacon of my Church. Can anyone expand on this?
Peace of the Lord be with you.
"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)
Just a description of origin:
Roman Catholic Church
Eastern Orthodox Church
I still don't get your point. Ignatius appears to be the earliest source of the term 'Catholic Church', and the context of the passage includes the notion of the Eucharist only being proper when administered by a Church official. I see no reason to separate the word 'Catholic' from that connotation, considering it earliest use appears to have carried that connotation.Yes, and if he wanted to make the definition of Catholic Church as that, he could have. As it is, however, he said, "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church".
IOW, he doesn't say, wherever the priest is offering sacrifice, there is the Catholic Church.
Who?That is what they'd like you to believe.
The Catholic Church in Salina... the Catholic Church in Chicago... that we can properly use such terms does not affect the definition of 'Catholic'. We can apply an adjective to any amount of nouns we wish, but that in itself does not explain what the meaning of the adjective is.c155ad Polycarp, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna is another definitional frame of Catholic.
Clearly, the idea isn't that the Catholic Church was in Rome (though it could be), but that wherever believers are (where Jesus Christ is) is the Catholic Church. Bishop of the Catholic Church in Smryna.
Sorry, but I do not see where Polycarp or Ignatius define 'Catholic'. I see that the terms are used in works by or related to those individuals, but I do not see where it is written that "Catholic means..." Without a straightforward statement of definition, we can only draw conclusions from the context in which the term was used.You may read more in the introduction about "Ignatius" and there's probably later scholar work.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
But okay, we can rely on Polycarp or Irenaues' definition---where Christ is or same faith is the Catholic Church.
The Roman Church was established in the time of the Apostles. Some might claim that it has drastically changed, but I do not believe that the Roman Church ever at any point ceased to exist, nor that it ceased to be Catholic. Even according to your definition, the Roman Church is Catholic.In any event, the point remains that the Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church are two different things. Roman Catholic didn't exist per se at that early stage. If anything, it would be Catholic Church in Rome, like Catholic Church in Smyrna. So for Roman Catholic, regardless of the rite, to call herself today "Catholic Church" is a misnomer; it is a redefinition of historical facts not only because that wasn't the definition, but also because it never existed as such. Historically, RC called herself and was known by the moniker Roman Church.
Are there still Romans todayThis reminds me when the PCA split off PCUSA, each claiming to be the original Presbyterians. Perhaps all denominations never got a church supposed to be if each claiming something the opposite of each other.
I still don't get your point. Ignatius appears to be the earliest source of the term 'Catholic Church', and the context of the passage includes the notion of the Eucharist only being proper when administered by a Church official. I see no reason to separate the word 'Catholic' from that connotation, considering it earliest use appears to have carried that connotation.
Who?
The Catholic Church in Salina... the Catholic Church in Chicago... that we can properly use such terms does not affect the definition of 'Catholic'. We can apply an adjective to any amount of nouns we wish, but that in itself does not explain what the meaning of the adjective is.
Sorry, but I do not see where Polycarp or Ignatius define 'Catholic'. I see that the terms are used in works by or related to those individuals, but I do not see where it is written that "Catholic means..." Without a straightforward statement of definition, we can only draw conclusions from the context in which the term was used.
The Roman Church was established in the time of the Apostles. Some might claim that it has drastically changed, but I do not believe that the Roman Church ever at any point ceased to exist, nor that it ceased to be Catholic. Even according to your definition, the Roman Church is Catholic.
This reminds me when the PCA split off PCUSA, each claiming to be the original Presbyterians. Perhaps all denominations never got a church supposed to be if each claiming something the opposite of each other.
Another opinion (John Gill):
1 Peter 5:13
Ver. 13. The church that is at Babylon[SIZE=+1],.... The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word "church", as we do. Some, by "Babylon", understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as {e} Eusebius relates; but that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in Ps 87:4[SIZE=+1] perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle's being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews {f} to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence {g} Babylonian. [/SIZE][/SIZE]
Standing Up said:Every group has done that that I'm aware of. Presbyterians, Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox, all claim to be the original Church.
The "correct description" of what?
The idea that "Roman" in RCC refers to the Latin Rite is common among a lot of ordinary Catholics, but it's not what Protestants denoted when they coined the term and it's not what the Pope means by it when he appropriates it.
The Catholic Church is the historical Church
Standing Up said:Sure. Just don't try to pass off that the Roman Catholic Church today is identical to that Catholic Church of some 2000 years ago.
Peace to you too.
Because the Western Patriarch (or Pope) is the Bishop of Rome.
In antiquity there used to be the Pentarchy, there were five major and significant centers of Christianity: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. Each was significant for various reasons.
Jerusalem was "Mother of all the churches" whose Patriarch was successor of the Seat of St. James.
Antioch was the second major place of apostolic activity, where we were first called "Christians" and the Patriarch was successor of Sts. Peter and Paul.
Alexandria was where the Catechetical School was founded, and was a significant hub of learning in the Greco-Roman world, and that also ended up including Christian learning. The Patriarch was successor of St. Mark the Evangelist.
Rome was capital of the Roman Empire, as such the bishop there was, in a sense, in the thick of what was going on in the world. The Patriarch was successor of St. Peter.
Byzantium became Constantinople and thus New Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople was successor of St. Andrew.
Of these five Rome held a certain significant place, since much of the theological controversies that the Church faced arose in the East, the Bishop of Rome was often sought for his counsel on matters. Perhaps due to being able to be more impartial since Rome was of significant distance from the centers of these disputes.
After the collapse of the Western Empire significant historical events happened that both shaped the Church as well as Western Europe in general.
Firstly: Without a centralized civil authority the Bishop of Rome was often sought as an island of stability, and as Germanic kings and warlords fought one another the Church in Rome remained rather fixed and he was often sought for appeal.
Secondly: The liturgies of the West slowly became more standardized, being brought into conformity with the Liturgical Rite used in Rome (the Latin Rite). Part of this process ended up involving a change in the language of the Nicene Creed. A single word was added in the Liturgical Rite used among the Frankish people of Gaul, "Filioque". Originally the Bishop of Rome opposed this change, but over time it was adopted into the Roman Liturgy and disseminated as part of the liturgical standardization throughout Western Europe.
Thirdly: Muslim conquests of Byzantine lands not only meant less power for the Roman Emperor in Constantinople, but also meant that the Patriarchs were increasingly more separated. By the 11th century the only Patriarch still in Byzantine/Roman territory was the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Fourthly: Even prior to the Fall of Rome and collapse of the Western Empire Latin had begun to replace Greek as the dominant language. This caused linguistic barriers between East and West, between Greek theologians and Latin theologians. Theological and Liturgical differences which had been present in some form for some time became more significant. In effect this compounded other factors which led to a growing rift within the Church.
Fifthly: In the beginning of the 9th century the Bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne the Holy Roman Emperor. This was no small matter as the Byzantine Emperor still claimed Western Europe as part of his domain. This, in a sense, meant that there were two Roman emperors, one Byzantine and one Frankish. This did not, by any means, help relations between the East and the West.
Sixthly: Originally the use of the word "pope" (meaning "papa") was a term of endearment applied to a bishop by the people. The Bishop of Rome wasn't the first or only to have this term applied, even to this day the Patriarch of Alexandria is referred to as "Pope" (c.f. Pope Shenouda III). In the 5th century Pope Leo I seems to have been the first to claim it as an exclusive title for the Roman Patriarch.
Seventhly: All of these factors ended up erupting in the middle of the 11th century. For one, the Pope argued that he had a primacy of jurisdiction (not just of honor as the East had traditionally taught), and insisted the authority to add the Filioque clause into the Creed apart from the need of an Ecumenical Council. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these claims. In 1054 two representatives of the Pope went to Constantinople and laid a Bull of Excommunication--the Patriarch of Rome had excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Outraged, the Patriarch of Constantinople returned the favor and excommunicated the Patriarch of Rome.
The Great Schism had just happened.
Both sides claim to be right. Both sides claim to be the True Church founded by Christ and that the other has broken away. Both claim to be the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.
What this, of course, meant in the West was that there was now only one Patriarch, the Pope in Rome.
In usual Roman Catholic parlance "Roman" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite, the Roman or Latin Rite. Eastern or Byzantine Catholics are those in communion with Rome who use the Byzantine Rite (and so on and so forth).
Though, arguably, among most Protestants and Orthodox the term "Roman" in the Roman Catholic Church refers also to the fact that it is constituted in part by being in ecclesiastical union with the Roman See.
In any event "Roman" has to do entirely with geography--the city of Rome. It has nothing to do with Constantine or the Roman Empire.
-CryptoLutheran
Well, Paul did go to the Jews and attempt to convert them, but he was turned downMakes sense to me, not having a dog in the hunt, so to speak. Peter went to the Jews, while Paul went to the Gentiles.
Context, at the header:
by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church refers to herself only as such. "Roman Church" refers to a particular diocese. The document you have posted was circulated by the Lutheran World Federation and responded to by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church acknowledges that many refer to her as "Roman Catholic Church", even though the Catholic Church (in communion with the successor of Peter) as a whole is not strictly Roman.
Thats why the apostle John was amazed at what he saw!rise from rome?
it was founded in rome by st.Peter and st.Paul
the first apostles to preach there
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?