Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[SPH1]

PhilVaz:

They were all part of the historic Christian Church, but not part of Roman Catholicism, since Roman Catholicism started sometime in the 17th or 18th century, maybe later, but definitely sometime after Luther and Calvin.

Phil,

You’re more right than you might think about Jason. Using his arguments, the Catholic Church after Vatican I isn’t the same Church as before.

But do you know what that means? That the “Pope” isn’t responsible for all of the Catholic Faith before then, the Church is!

Jason misuses the term RCC. He tries to make it seem as if “Rome” is responsible, in dictatoral fashion, for the Catholic Faith. But by his own argumentation, the papacy didn’t even exist in St. Augustine’s time…or even after. So we cannot blame the papacy for Augustine’s “Catholic” beliefs.

Jason doesn’t see it, but his beef is with the Christian Church, not just the papacy.

 

[PhilVaz]

I can see it now…a new book published by Christian Resources (Webster’s group), kinda like volume 3 of their Sola Scriptura volumes, but with 400 pages of “quotes” from the Fathers

Catholic But Not Roman Catholic: Why a Church that is 15 years old is better than a Church that is 2000 years old, But Contradicts what the Apostles Taught – An Exhaustive Refutation of Roman Catholicism (but not Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, or Lutheranism) from the Fathers, who were not Roman Catholic!

Endorsements from leading evangelical “scholars”

Eric Svendsen: “…one of the sharpest minds in evangelical theology today, tells it like it is from the Church Fathers…”

James White: “…I thought I knew the Fathers, until I read this book. Wow!”

William Webster: “…learned, scholarly, irrefutable, undeniable contradictions in the Fathers. Yes, they were not Roman Catholic.”

Then this one word review:

Pelikan: “Drivel.”

Phil P

 

[johnMark]

PhilVaz:

I can see it now…a new book published by Christian Resources (Webster’s group), kinda like volume 3 of their Sola Scriptura volumes, but with 400 pages of “quotes” from the Fathers

Catholic But Not Roman Catholic: Why a Church that is 15 years old is better than a Church that is 2000 years old, But Contradicts what the Apostles Taught – An Exhaustive Refutation of Roman Catholicism (but not Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, or Lutheranism) from the Fathers, who were not Roman Catholic!

Endorsements from leading evangelical “scholars”

Eric Svendsen: “…one of the sharpest minds in evangelical theology today, tells it like it is from the Church Fathers…”

James White: “…I thought I knew the Fathers, until I read this book. Wow!”

William Webster: “…learned, scholarly, irrefutable, undeniable contradictions in the Fathers. Yes, they were not Roman Catholic.”

Then this one word review:

Pelikan: “Drivel.”

Phil P

How helpful is the above to this discussion and what does it show?

Mark…

 

[johnMark]

JPrejean:

I will add a remark that I neglected in my last response about anachronism. You badly misinterpret documents such as those of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Vatican I when you interpret what they mean by clear in terms of your own personal understanding, despite repeated observations that you are reading those documents entirely out of context (PhilVaz and Steve Ray both pointed this out to Bill Webster, but it didn’t help there either). It certainly doesn’t help your case when you place your own subjective notion of “clear” (for example) into what the Pope was saying. Your case may well be beyond help anyway, but blatant anachronism in a supposedly historical argument will kill the argument before it even gets out of the gate.

On what are you basing your position of the allegation of Jason that he “badly misinterpret documents such as those of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Vatican I”?

Mark…

 

[PhilVaz]

JohnMark << How helpful is the above to this discussion and what does it show? >>

It shows I think most of the anti-Catholic discussion on the Fathers by JasonTE is drivel?

JohnMark << On what are you basing your position of the allegation of Jason that he “badly misinterpret documents such as those of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Vatican I”? >>

All you have to do is read the documents themselves. Then read a history of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption, and history of Vatican I, the Papacy and papal infallibility. I would again recommend Carol Mariology (3 volumes), and Vatican Council I by Cuthbert Butler.

Phil P

 

[p90]

PhilVaz:

Let’s see, I score this debate out of a possible 10 points.

JPrejean 7, JasonTE 3

I would score it as follows:

JPrejean 1, JasonTE 9

How useful is a “score” for a debate?

-M

 

[PhilVaz]

p90 << How useful is a “score” for a debate? >>

Not very. Jprejean **+**10, JasonTE **-**10

The thread became incomprehensible around page 5 anyway.

Phil P

 

[PaulDupre]

JasonTE:

Your claims about terminology and about a papacy in early church history have been refuted. See my earlier posts in this thread. I’ve cited your denomination’s hierarchy referring to the entire denomination with terms like “Roman” and “Roman Catholic”. I’ve also cited scholars such as Craig Keener and Klaus Schatz describing a scholarly consensus about the earliest Christians not viewing Peter as a Pope. And I’ve given historical reasons, from the original documents, to agree with that scholarly consensus.

Though the word “Pope” was not used until a few hundred years later, the ECFs describe how the Churches looked to the bishop of Rome for a final resolution to disputes about doctrines and practices. As for Keener and Schatz - never heard of 'em. Try Karl Keating and Steven K. Ray.
Paul

 

[corkybob]

OrthodoxBerean:

How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

I would ask if they are in union with the Holy Father. You can be Catholic but not Roman Catholic. The Early Church was Catholic but not all Roman Catholic. The point is that all Catholics held the Pope to be “First amongst equals.,” thus the Pontiff had an office of last resort. If a See was to be unable to decided on a question, they would ask the Pope to decided. Once he decided it could not be taken any where else. In rare cases the Pope actually took a Patriarch out of his office because of heredical beliefs.

Pax
John

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JasonTE wrote:

The issue with Chalcedon is whether people then considered canon 28 valid

My understanding is that the Patriarch of Constantinople conceded that canon 28 was not valid since Pope Leo did not ratify it. In fact, after Pope Leo rejected canon 28, Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote a letter to Pope Leo apologizing for the attempted canon, and conceding that NONE of the canons had any effect unless ratified by Pope Leo.

From Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Leo:

As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts [of Chalcedon] was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.

From: bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

The Protestant CCEL site (rather suspiciously) only summarizes this letter without providing the actual content. Here’s what they say:

Letter CXXXII. From Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, to Leo.

(In which he complains of the intermission in their correspondence, maintains his allegiance to Rome, announces the restitution of Aetius, deprecates the charge of personal ambition, and remits the proceedings of Chalcedon for his approval.)

From: ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-131.htm#P2286_544844

Did Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople following the Council of Chalcedon consider canon 28 valid? It doesn’t seem so. The later claims to the contrary seem unconvincing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Did the Bishop of Rome merely have primacy of honor in the early Church, or did he indeed have primacy of jurisdiction, able to veto canons overwhelmingly approved by a council of bishops from both East and West? It seems in view of Anatolius’ letter, that the Pope did indeed have primacy of jurisdiction despite later claims to the contrary.

Where he get this primacy? Aquired secular prominence? Not according to the bishops of both east and west in their letter to Pope Leo. They state clearly that the “custody of the vine” had been given to Pope Leo “by the Savior.”

Bishops of Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:

**Besides all this, he [Dioscorus] extended his fury even against **him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness.

---

For those who claim the early Church was not the Catholic Church with the Roman Pontiff presiding with a primacy of honor and jurisdiction, let them explain Chalcedon and canon 28.

Here’s some excerpts that may be of use in that discussion …

Excerpts from the Acts of the Council are provided **from CCEL.org, a Protestant source… **(http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-90.htm)

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches.

… Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

According to Session II of the Acts of Chalcedon, after the Tome of Leo was read, the Bishops of the Council cried out: (ref: http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/leotome.htm)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo.

 

[PhilVaz]

I thought this thread was long dead. But thanks for resurrecting and linking to one of my articles. One of the most detailed discussions on the Council of Chalcedon and canon 28 is by Luke Rivington, an Anglican priest for 50 years before he became Catholic. I have his whole book in complete photocopy, and have mailed out numerous copies, titled The Primitive Church and the See of Peter (1894), the chapter on Chalcedon and canon 28 is here at Dave Palm’s site

The Byzantine Plot by Rivington

Phil P

 

[itsjustdave1988]

PhilVaz,

Thanks for the article. It has come in quite handy when challenged by those who believe all bishops had equal authority in the early Church.

I once had a disussion with an Antiochene Orthodox gentleman who seemed rather stumped by Anatolius’ candid admission.

In fact, I’ve never seen anybody (Protestant or Orthodox) convincingly reconcile the primacy of jurisdiction so evident at Chalcedon with later theories of the Pope merely having only primacy of honor.

 

[jonniq21]

Is a term used by those rebelling against the Church of Christ. From the time of St Peter (76 AD) to the present Pope Benedict XVI, the Catholic Church has been growing from strength to strength as promised to Peter. Deviants and heretics are completely out out of the way.

John Ikebudu
Onitsha, Nigeria

 

[Mannyfit75]

How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

You have to look at the Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. They were Romans back then who were Christians. There also those in Corinths… and throughout the Roman Empire… if its throughout the entire world in those days… the Church was very universal or Catholic.

 

[ositakc]

Well, it must be noted that until around 325 there really was not a title Pope, just the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has more of a Patriarchal past. Until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God. Then the Nicene Creed came about and Constantine gave jurisdiction to the Bishop of Alexandra and to The Bishop of Rome. When Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople that blurred things even more.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that apostolic succession is more or less based on land and location. Which is fine but maybe a bit tautological.

Sounds like the same “evidence” from the Da Vinci Code…

 

[Hesychios]

Sounds like the same “evidence” from the Da Vinci Code…

Huh??

 

[ositakc]

Huh??

I was responding to a much earlier post, mistakedly thinking I was on the latest page:

“Until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God.”

That is the kind of “evidence” presented in The Da Vinci Code.

 

[SIA]

In what way could the Early Church NOT be considered Roman Catholic? Knowing that the Early Church had a succession of Popes (the lineage of which still continues in the RCC) who resided in Rome might be a valid argument for a Roman Catholic Church.

The early church was not centered in Rome nor was its authority saught in a pope. Did Peter ever use authority over the early Christians? What about when Paul opposed him to his face. Did Peter use his authority to win the day with Paul? Was Peter lavished with riches, gold and immense unimagineable wealth and carried into and out of mass by Vatican guards? Remember, Peter was a poor fisherman. He wasn’t even correct about what he said much of the time.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The early church was not centered in Rome nor was its authority saught in a pope. Did Peter ever use authority over the early Christians?

Peter did have authority. This seem throughout the Book of Acts. The Early Church consist of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. These five were know as Patriarchates. Rome had primacy over other all the other churches. All five make up the the four marks of the Church of Christ. It is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

What about when Paul opposed him to his face. Did Peter use his authority to win the day with Paul?

Paul corrected Peter for not practicing what he preached. Paul corrected Peter for his errors. Peter did not taught in his teaching office.

Was Peter lavished with riches, gold and immense unimagineable wealth and carried into and out of mass by Vatican guards? Remember, Peter was a poor fisherman. He wasn’t even correct about what he said much of the time.

Peter was poor fisherman. The Vatican is not rich. Most of its vehicles are loan from the Italian government. The Pope is not rich, he doesn’t get paid and only get enough money to buy essential things use for life. The Vatican is in debt and isn’t wealthy.