A Historical Dare to Protestants

[stbruderklaus]

I’ve gotta take a break from this thread… this is going nowhere.

If anyone wants me, please feel free to contact me privately.

Peace to all.

 

[Hisalone]

I’ve gotta take a break from this thread… this is going nowhere.

If anyone wants me, please feel free to contact me privately.

Peace to all.

Dont blame you. Watching eman get “offended” so as not to address your point.

 

[elvisman]

The problem, bro, is that this notion is not ever set down in an ecumenical council… isn’t that odd? The idea of total control of the Catholic Church residing with just one of the ancient Patriarchs just never came up in the first 7 ecumenical councils. I find that fascinating. However, the things that did come up, included excommunicating a heretical Roman Pope, and establishing at least for a time the “primacy” of Patriarchates other than Rome (Jerusalem and Constantinople, at different times, if I recall.)

So in all that hustle and bustle, the domination of the Roman Patriarch over the other Patriarchs never got set down in the canons nor the councils… and when Rome stands up and declares this new dogma, 1000 years after the Apostles, driving away the rest of the ancient Patriarchs, we’re supposed to believe that the Patriarchs who refused Roman innovation are the ones who left the Catholic Church?!?

Frankly, I think your definition of catholicity is what’s really wanting. That term, by the way, was defined by the Church Fathers… and not a single mention of Roman primacy was in that definition. Being the scholar of ecclesiastical history that you present yourself to be, would you like to enlighten us with the Fathers’ defintion of catholicity?

Peace.

Councils were convened, declarations were made and Dogmas were set in place usually because of heresiesand abuses. This doesn’t make them “new” beliefs". I just declares them as truths that always were.
As for the Fathers - you’re dead wrong:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
“…the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

 

[stbruderklaus]

I really appreaciate the dialogue, but could you please stop using the term, “Romans” when speaking of the Catholic Church?
It is a derogatory term.

Nope-- that’s what the Romans are. Catholicity is bigger than Rome, and even the Roman CCC admits that. While the Catholic Church may SUBSIST in the Roman Catholic Church, they are not equivalent.

Peace.

 

[elvisman]

Dont blame you. Watching eman get “offended” so as not to address your point.

I’ve addressed ALL of his pionts.
**I wasn’t dodging anything. **

Calling Catholics “Romanists”, “Papists” or “Romans” is silly, immature and uncharitable - as is bearing false witness, like you just did.

 

[elvisman]

Nope-- that’s what the Romans are. Catholicity is bigger than Rome, and even the Roman CCC admits that. While the Catholic Church may SUBSIST in the Roman Catholic Church, they are not equivalent.

Peace.

Not very charitable, are we, stbruderklaus? It also happens to be against the forum rules to use these sorts of derogatory remarks.

All I ask is that you show some courtesy - before you get reported to the mods.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Councils were convened, declarations were made and Dogmas were set in place usually because of heresiesand abuses. This doesn’t make them “new” beliefs". I just declares them as truths that always were.
As for the Fathers - you’re dead wrong:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
**“…the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition **(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

None of these address catholicity, my friend. They reflect a primacy of honor and ecumenism that the See of Rome enjoyed in the early centuries. If Rome had maintained this role into the second millenium, we would not have suffered the first great schism of 1054, nor the schisms of the Reformation. Rome enjoyed this so long as it retained its catholicity… when it assumed domination over ecumenical councils, it lost this role. It might also be noted, that not all the Fathers agreed with the ones you quoted. Are you having difficulty finding the Father’s definition of catholicity?

Refering to Roman Catholics as Romans is simply short hand-- like the way Romans refer to us as Lutherans. Actually, we prefer the title Evangelical Catholics, but Rome decided to brand us with a particular name so as to discredit us… we just played a little judo and let it stick. Since there are more Catholics in the world than just Roman Catholics, I use the term to properly identify who I’m referencing. No intent to be uncharitable. Roman Catholics are most defined by their Roman dogmas and canons… it seems a reasonable title for them.

Really gotta go. Y’all have a nice weekend.

Cheers.

 

[catholic_daddy]

The problem, bro, is that this notion is not ever set down in an ecumenical council… isn’t that odd? The idea of total control of the Catholic Church residing with just one of the ancient Patriarchs just never came up in the first 7 ecumenical councils. I find that fascinating. However, the things that did come up, included excommunicating a heretical Roman Pope, and establishing at least for a time the “primacy” of Patriarchates other than Rome (Jerusalem and Constantinople, at different times, if I recall.)

So in all that hustle and bustle, the domination of the Roman Patriarch over the other Patriarchs never got set down in the canons nor the councils… and when Rome stands up and declares this new dogma, 1000 years after the Apostles, driving away the rest of the ancient Patriarchs, we’re supposed to believe that the Patriarchs who refused Roman innovation are the ones who left the Catholic Church?!?

Frankly, I think your definition of catholicity is what’s really wanting. That term, by the way, was defined by the Church Fathers… and not a single mention of Roman primacy was in that definition. Being the scholar of ecclesiastical history that you present yourself to be, would you like to enlighten us with the Fathers’ defintion of catholicity?

Peace.

Yes! You are right on, my friend. It is amazing how much big talk there is around here, and yet when you read some of Jesus’ last words, in Revelation, where he addresses seven churches, Rome isn’t even mentioned. I know some believe the chuches there are metaphorical. BUT, one thing that IS clear is this: Any church can have its position overturned if it veres off course, either in doctrine or if it becomes lukewarm. The church that was rich and feeling it was lacking in nothing was ready to be vomitted out of Jesus’ mouth! When you read those passages you know that historical succession doesn’t guarantee a thing! Christ will get His work done through churches that are true to His heart and true to His Word. Period!

 

[stbruderklaus]

Not very charitable, are we, stbruderklaus? It also happens to be against the forum rules to use these sorts of derogatory remarks.

All I ask is that you show some courtesy - before you get reported to the mods.

Sheesh… there is nothing slanderous or uncharitable in the title of Roman Catholic. Report me all you want, bro. I can’t let you misrepresent terms that cause confusion. The Catholic Church is not a simple equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church. Romans are a distinct group of Christians, and attempting to blur those lines is bad form, amigo-- it inspires confusion. Can’t have meaningful dialogue with intentional confusion of definitional terms.

 

[elvisman]

None of these address catholicity, my friend. They reflect a primacy of honor and ecumenism that the See of Rome enjoyed in the early centuries. If Rome had maintained this role into the second millenium, we would not have suffered the first great schism of 1054, nor the schisms of the Reformation. Rome enjoyed this so long as it retained its catholicity… when it assumed domination over ecumenical councils, it lost this role. It might also be noted, that not all the Fathers agreed with the ones you quoted. Are you having difficulty finding the Father’s definition of catholicity?

Refering to Roman Catholics as Romans is simply short hand-- like the way Romans refer to us as Lutherans. Actually, we prefer the title Evangelical Catholics, but Rome decided to brand us with a particular name so as to discredit us… we just played a little judo and let it stick. Since there are more Catholics in the world than just Roman Catholics, I use the term to properly identify who I’m referencing. No intent to be uncharitable. Roman Catholics are most defined by their Roman dogmas and canons… it seems a reasonable title for them.

Really gotta go. Y’all have a nice weekend.

Cheers.

Then you didn’t read the - especially the first one from Ignatius of Antioch.
They ALL address the Catholic Church. You simple refuse to see it.

As for the term, “Lutheran”, that is what is on the sign of every Lutheran Church I’ve ever attended or seen. I defy you to find one Catholic Church with a sign that says, “St. Michael’s Roman Church” or “Romanist Church”. Whereas they may say, Roman Catholic, you won’t find “Roman” by itself.

 

[elvisman]

Sheesh… there is nothing slanderous or uncharitable in the title of Roman Catholic. Report me all you want, bro. I can’t let you misrepresent terms that cause confusion. The Catholic Church is not a simple equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church. Romans are a distinct group of Christians, and attempting to blur those lines is bad form, amigo-- it inspires confusion. Can’t have meaningful dialogue with intentional confusion of definitional terms.

You didn’t say “Roman Catholic”. You used the term “Romans” - then you defended it!
I don’t play games.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Yes! You are right on, my friend. It is amazing how much big talk there is, and yet when you read some of Jesus’ last words, in Revelation, where he addresses seven churches, Rome isn’t even mentioned. I know some believe the chuches there are metaphorical. BUT, one thing that IS clearis this: Any church can have its position overturned if it veres off course either in doctrine or if it becomes lukewarm. The church that was rich and feeling it was lacking in nothing was ready to be vomitted out of Jesus’ mouth! When you read those passages you know that historical succession doesn’t guarantee a thing! Christ will get His work done through churches that are true to His heart and true to His Word. Period!

I agree. I think that was largely Paul’s point when writing to the Christians at Rome. He advised them that they were grafted into Christ by faith, and would be broken off if they did not continue in faith… just like the puffed up Pharisees and Sadducees, with all their tradition and self-constructed importance.

Funny how he wrote those words to the future See of St. Peter…

 

[jblake]

stbruderklaus;:

German Catholic Church that you mention

It probably would be more accurate to say “Its theology and practices were theoretically different from that of Rome”. Any pronouncements it made, were invalid only if rejected by Rome.

It had a formal, separate existence from that of the Roman Catholic Church. It probably is best treated as if it was a political toy, subject to the whims of both Rome and the local government.

If you wanted anything done, you either went to Rome, or the local government. (The clergy were usually supplied by Rome. The income usually came from the support of the local government.)

Offhand, I don’t know if it was the nuclease of the churches that went with Luther, or the ones that went with Rome. At any rate, Luther’s formal split killed it.

jonathon

 

[elvisman]

Yes! You are right on, my friend. It is amazing how much big talk there is, and yet when you read some of Jesus’ last words, in Revelation, where he addresses seven churches, Rome isn’t even mentioned. I know some believe the chuches there are metaphorical. BUT, one thing that IS clearis this: Any church can have its position overturned if it veres off course either in doctrine or if it becomes lukewarm. The church that was rich and feeling it was lacking in nothing was ready to be vomitted out of Jesus’ mouth! When you read those passages you know that historical succession doesn’t guarantee a thing! Christ will get His work done through churches that are true to His heart and true to His Word. Period!

And there is not one Protestant Church that is true to his heart and his word. If there was one, they would adhere to everything he taught - not just the buffet-style faith that is present in so many of them. “I’ll believe this, but the Real Presence? That’s weird!” Some of this - none of that.

No, my confused friend, o****nly the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Gospel.

PS - Why do you identify yourself as Catholic Daddy?

 

[stbruderklaus]

You didn’t say "Roman Catholic". You used the term “Romans” - then you defended it!
I don’t play games.

No, Elvis, you just holler in technicolor. Enjoy hollering without me… but I will say, you are about the worst Roman apologist I’ve run into in quite some time. You might want to spend some time with your better representatives… they make much better appeals to non-Romans that you have.

You do your communion a disservice. I’m done here.

 

[elvisman]

I agree. I think that was largely Paul’s point when writing to the Christians at Rome. He advised them that they were grafted into Christ by faith, and would be broken off if they did not continue in faith… just like the puffed up Pharisees and Sadducees, with all their tradition and self-constructed importance.

Funny how he wrote those words to the future See of St. Peter…

Sounds to me like he was referring to the Rebels - or “Reformers”.

 

[broski234]

**And there is not one **

PS - Why do you identify yourself as Catholic Daddy?

I have wondered that too.

 

[elvisman]

No, Elvis, you just holler in technicolor. Enjoy hollering without me… but I will say, you are about the worst Roman apologist I’ve run into in quite some time. You might want to spend some time with your better representatives… they make much better appeals to non-Romans that you have.

You do your communion a disservice. I’m done here.

There you go again with the “Roman” term.
When all else fails, start the name-calling.

Consider yourself reported.

 

[elvisman]

I have wondered that too.

Strange, ain’t it?

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Gospel.

Which explains why Catholic Christianity also admits to the assertion that the fullness of the Gospel is found in Orthodox Christianity.

jonathon