Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[jblake]

anthony022071;:

It was the Church of Constantinople that broke away from the Catholic Church over the “filioque” clause in the Western creed,and the other Eastern Churches followed suit.

The split between Orthodox Christianity and Oriental Christianity took place centuries before the split between Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Christianity.

xan

jonathon

 

[Margarite]

I read that some people say the apostolic succession was broken. The Catholic Church can trace popes all the way back to Peter so if someone could explain where they claim the succession was broken please explain.
As far as the Eastern and Western churches the East left the West because they did not believe that one pope could govern the two branches of the Church. They did not believe in the infallibility of the Pope so…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

JasonTE
So are the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. Nobody in the earliest centuries mentions such doctrines, they can’t …

First of all the Immaculate Conception makes sense. It makes sense that something as holy as Christ could not be contained in an imperfect container (for lack of a better word). Mary was much like the Ark of the Covenant. God specifically designed it for the purpose of holding something holy. God used the best material available to make the ark and then the holy things were placed inside of it. Mary is actually called “Ark of the Covenant.” She like the ark was singled out for a specific task. She was kept clean of all evil because she was to contain perfection itself. How could something imperfect contain and teach and raise something perfect?
I believe that the doctrine of her being a virgin is indisputable as both she and the angel refer to her being a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception.
Now to the idea that she had other children. That would be like taking the chalice used during holy mass to contain the Blood of Christ and using it at dinner to hold whatever drink you are drinking. It would be sacrilegious. Something that was kept pure so that it could hold God would not be allowed to be soiled by carrying something with sin in it. Any other child she would have had would have to have Original Sin (God would not make an exception for children who were not destined to hold the Holy of Holies) so she could not have other children.
The assumption also makes sense. One of the punishments for Original Sin was death. So why should Mary, if she was conceived immaculately, be subjected to the punishments of Original Sin? She shouldn’t.
So really to believe in the assumption one must also believe in the Immaculate Conception. And if one believes that Christ was born of Mary as the Bible says then it is logical to believe in the Immaculate Conception and thus the Assumption.
Catholic teachings are very logical and for everything there are a hundred reasons to believe and a hundred supporting facts.

Protestantism is also very logical and for everything they have a hundred reasons to believe and a hundred supporting facts. And yet they are wrong.

I agree that the Assumption is logically connected to the IC, which is why the Orthodox don’t support Munificentissimus Deus, with its vagueness between the position between the Mortalists (with which we side) and Immortalists (Vox Populi Mariae types).

The fallacy of potuit, decuit ergo fecit depends on our fallible determination of what is “fitting.” We should stick to what we know He did.

 

[paarsurrey]

JasonTE
So are the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. Nobody in the earliest centuries mentions such doctrines, they can’t …

Hi

I think these concepts “immaculate conception , assumption of Mary” were very later addition in Catholicism.

Quran does not mention these concepts.

Thanks

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hi

I think these concepts “immaculate conception , assumption of Mary” were very later addition in Catholicism.

Quran does not mention these concepts.

Thanks

The hadith say the Muhammad said that Satan touches everyone except Jesus and His mother.

The Assumption of the Theotokos at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), when the Patriarch of Jerusalem informed the Church at large regarding the Theotokos’ tomb there, and that it had been empty since the Apostles.

 

[peary]

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

**Members of the early Church were called ‘Christians’ as recorded in ACTS. Later, as various forms of ‘Christianity’ vied for validation both inside and outside of the Church, it was necessary to clarify the true Church as one, holy, catholic and have direct apostolic succession.

Rome was the seat of civilization at the time, and the Church had much success there in conversion. I have no problem being labelled a ‘Roman’ Catholic because I subscribe to the Latin or Roman liturgical rite of worship. Protestants have always had a limited understanding of the Church’s rites. When you point out to them that there are other rites of worship within the Catholic Church, they become perplexed - Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean, not to mention Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Bragan and order rites of worship particular to the Dominicans, Carmelites, and Carthusians.

What all this actually shows is the universal nature of the Catholic Church. When Protestants refer to the ‘Roman’ they do so with pointing out the position of the Church’s seat in Rome, no more, no less. Again, the limited understanding they possess about the Church colors their own perception of what they consider reality.**

 

[anthony022071]

The split between Orthodox Christianity and Oriental Christianity took place centuries before the split between Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Christianity.

xan

jonathon

Prior to the Schism,there was no entity called the Orthodox Church for the Oriental churches to split away from. There was only the Catholic Church,which had the orthodox faith,and the heretics outside of the Church.
That is the original meaning of the phase “no salvation out side of the Catholic Church”. The people who broke away from the traditional teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church became heretics,such as the Gnostics,Arians,Nestorians,Pelagasians,Novatians,and Monophysites.
It was only after the major heresies had been overcome and the doctrines of the Church had been well enough developed and defined that the clergy of Constantinople felt confident enough to defy Rome without being heretical. The filioque was the first Roman doctrine that the Greek Catholics ever denied. But just prior to the Schism,Constantinople was still relying on Rome’s teaching authority and ecclesiastical authority to settle theological and clerical disputes in the East.

 

[anthony022071]

Hi

I think these concepts “immaculate conception , assumption of Mary” were very later addition in Catholicism.

Quran does not mention these concepts.

Thanks

The scriptures and the early Church fathers do not mention the Quran.

 

[Aramis]

Hi

I think these concepts “immaculate conception , assumption of Mary” were very later addition in Catholicism.

Quran does not mention these concepts.

Thanks

The Quran is immaterial, since either it’s the “accurately recorded word of God” and the bible therefore isn’t, making the orthodox and catholic churches completely in error, or it is bunk, concocted by a madman’s followers by borrowing Gnostic Christianity and going a step further, and deceiving millions, and leading thousands to violent jyhad. In the former case, it would ignore what was believed anyway, and in the later, it would reflect the source groups, which were considered heretical centuries earlier.

Quite honestly, several churches were excommunicated well before that 1054 date: Gnostics, Miaphysite/Monophysites (who are now the Oriental Orthodox Communion), Nestorians (Still around: Assrians and Ancients). This list includes only groups that had established regional churches of one form or another. Other groups did not have particular churches, but were likewise excommunicated for heresy: more Gnositcs, Muslims, Pelagians, Arians, more Arians…

As to the immaculate conception: there are references to Mary’s purity in the 4th century writings and liturgies. The Assumption is late 5th century for churchwide acceptance.

 

[anthony022071]

It was founded by St. Andrew, but yes, its position it owed to its imperial authority, which, according to the Ecumenical Councils, is where Rome got her primacy.

newadvent.org/cathen/04301a.htm

< Traces of Christianity do not appear here [Byzantium] before the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In 212 Tertullian commemorates the joy of the Christians at the defeat of Pescennius Niger (“Ad Scapulam”, iii: “Cæcilius Capella in illo exitu Byzantino: Christiani gaudete”). About 190, an Antitrinitarian heretic, Theodotus the Currier, a native of Byzantium, was expelled from the Roman Church ("Phiosophoumena, VIII, xxxv; St. Epiphanius, “Adv. Hær.,” liv). A probably reliable tradition makes the Byzantine Church a suffragan of Heraclea in Thrace at the beginning of the third century. In the fifth century we meet with a spurious document attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre at the end of the third century, according to which the Church of Byzantium was founded by the Apostle St. Andrew, its first bishop being his disciple Stachys (cf. Romans 16:9). The intention of the forger is plain: in this way the Church of Rome is made inferior to that of Constantinople, St. Andrew having been chosen an Apostle by Jesus before his brother St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church. >

The bishops of the Council of Constantinople 1 and of Chalecedon were disingenuous when they claimed that the See of Rome owed it’s privileges from imperial authority. The Church in Rome was illegal and persecuted,and popes were martyred until the Edict of Toleration,and even after that Roman popes were persecuted by kings and Emporers,as with Pope John 1 and Pope Martin 1. And after 324,Constantine made Constantinople the capitol of the Empire. So how could the See of Rome owe its authority and privileges to imperial power when it was illegal and persecuted,and later when Rome ceased to be the capitol of the Empire? That idea doesn’t make sense.

 

[Alexius]

JasonTE
So are the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. Nobody in the earliest centuries mentions such doctrines, they can’t …

First of all the Immaculate Conception makes sense. It makes sense that something as holy as Christ could not be contained in an imperfect container (for lack of a better word). Mary was much like the Ark of the Covenant. God specifically designed it for the purpose of holding something holy. God used the best material available to make the ark and then the holy things were placed inside of it. Mary is actually called “Ark of the Covenant.” She like the ark was singled out for a specific task. She was kept clean of all evil because she was to contain perfection itself. How could something imperfect contain and teach and raise something perfect?
I believe that the doctrine of her being a virgin is indisputable as both she and the angel refer to her being a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception.
Now to the idea that she had other children. That would be like taking the chalice used during holy mass to contain the Blood of Christ and using it at dinner to hold whatever drink you are drinking. It would be sacrilegious. Something that was kept pure so that it could hold God would not be allowed to be soiled by carrying something with sin in it. Any other child she would have had would have to have Original Sin (God would not make an exception for children who were not destined to hold the Holy of Holies) so she could not have other children.
The assumption also makes sense. One of the punishments for Original Sin was death. So why should Mary, if she was conceived immaculately, be subjected to the punishments of Original Sin? She shouldn’t.
So really to believe in the assumption one must also believe in the Immaculate Conception. And if one believes that Christ was born of Mary as the Bible says then it is logical to believe in the Immaculate Conception and thus the Assumption.
Catholic teachings are very logical and for everything there are a hundred reasons to believe and a hundred supporting facts.

I read that some people say the apostolic succession was broken. The Catholic Church can trace popes all the way back to Peter so if someone could explain where they claim the succession was broken please explain.
As far as the Eastern and Western churches the East left the West because they did not believe that one pope could govern the two branches of the Church. They did not believe in the infallibility of the Pope so…

First, it is the tradition of the East (both Orthodox and Catholic) that the Blessed Theotokos did indeed die.

Second, to all who hold that the Orthodox left the Church, where is your reasoning coming from? It was the Church of Rome that separated from all the other Patriarchates by the sending them away via a Papal Bull that states many false reasons for separation. That individuals on both sides were responsible is clear, but that Rome broke up the Church is also clear. If your reasoning is that the Church is called Catholic, then is it not also Orthodox? Simply having the name Catholic (which all Eastern churches also retain) does not negate responsibility. Read the Church Fathers. When they speak of the Church, it is both Orthodox AND Catholic. Even today, Orthodox claim to be Catholic and Catholics claim to be Orthodox. Read the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[paarsurrey]

As to the immaculate conception: there are references to Mary’s purity in the 4th century writings and liturgies. The Assumption is late 5th century for churchwide acceptance.

Hi

I understand from one of my Catholic friends on another forum that these concept “Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption” were officially accepted much later by the Pope Benedict XIV who was pope from 1740 to 1758.

Could you please account for the lapse of about 1000 years?

I think there is no worthwhile mention about Mary ( or the above concepts) by Paul. Any good reason, please.

Thanks

 

[Isa_Almisry]

On St. Adrew%between%

Eusebius mentions the acts of Andrew
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxv.html

which explicitely place Andrew at Byzantium during his missionary travels:
The Acts of Andrew

And that his area of Apostleship was the Black Sea region
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.i.html#iii.viii.i-Page_132

Hippolyte of Antioch (died ~AD 250) in his On apostles, Origen in the third book of his Commentaries on Genesis (AD 254), Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (AD 340), mention that Saint Andrew preached in Scythia Minor, and he would have to pass by Byzantium to get there, as the Acts of Andrew state.

The bishops of the Council of Constantinople 1 and of Chalecedon were disingenuous when they claimed that the See of Rome owed it’s privileges from imperial authority.

 

[Aramis]

Hi

I understand from one of my Catholic friends on another forum that these concept “Immaculate Conception and Mary’s Assumption” were officially accepted much later by the Pope Benedict XIV who was pope from 1740 to 1758.

Could you please account for the lapse of about 1000 years?

I think there is no worthwhile mention about Mary ( or the above concepts) by Paul. Any good reason, please.

Thanks

You’re confusing “required to be believed” with “believed”. They became dogmatic (required belief) much later than they were first common beliefs.

Immaculate Conception: 1854 became dogmatic (a quick internet search revealed this information in seconds; please, do some research!) But Hyppolytus (d. 236 AD) write of her as exempt from defilement and corruption.
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Asumption of Mary: first brought up at the council of Chalcedon (451); widely believed by the mid 700’s, dogmatic definition 1950.
newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[Margarite]

“The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption had been recognized and taught as Catholic belief long before their infallible promulgation as dogma, but the dogmatic definitions were made in 1854 (Immaculate Conception) and 1950 (Assumption).”
“The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on December 8, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma…the Immaculate Conception gained additional significance from the apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes in 1858. In Lourdes a 14-year-old girl, Bernadette Soubirous, claimed a beautiful lady appeared to her. The lady identified herself as “the Immaculate Conception” and the faithful believe her to be the Blessed Virgin Mary.”
“…arguing that Mary’s immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ; rather it was the result of a more perfect redemption given to her on account of her special role in history. Furthermore, [it was argued] that Mary was redeemed in anticipation of Christ’s death on the cross. This was similar to the way that the Church explained the Last Supper (since Roman Catholic theology teaches that the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar, and Christ did not die before the Last Supper). [This] defence of the immaculist thesis was summed up …as potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it).”
“It was not until 1854 that Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic Bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, proclaimed the doctrine in accordance with the conditions of papal infallibility that would be defined in 1870 by the First Vatican Council.”
“The Catholic church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to [the Assumption of Mary].”

 

[Margarite]

You say that the Assumption and IC were not mentioned in the Bible, first of all they were and secondly not everything was mentioned there. After the gospels finished there is not much historical recording, mostly just sermons. Even in the Gospels not every gospel writer wrote everything down. I mean Mark did not mention Christ’s birth and neither did John (John was Christ’s “beloved”). Does this mean that Christ was not born? Just because the bible does not mention Cleopatra does not mean she did not exist. Just because the bible does not say that Christ was both fully human and fully God does not mean it is not so. Just because the bible does not bless those close to death and ask His father’s blessing upon them does not mean that he did not.
We know that many parts of Christ’s and most especially Mary’s life are not known by us, but they happened. Why wouldn’t you want to believe something so beautiful? Why wouldn’t you want to think that God could and would prepare himself a perfect place to reside? Why wouldn’t you want to believe that God would protect the girl who would become his mother from all evil? God loved her before he even made her why would he subject this woman who he would love so humanly to sin and evil?
It seems so right and millennia of Catholics have believed it and a pope has infallibly declared it true so if you are Catholic why disbelieve?
Also St Bernadette saw Our Lady and she called herself the Immaculate Conception. If Mary is in heaven then she cannot tell a lie and so then she is the Immaculate Conception. No other saint could claim to be conceived immaculately so the woman St. Bernadette must have been Mary Mother of God.

It is simple logic.

 

[anthony022071]

So SS Peter and Paul came to Rome just because the weather was nice?

The reasons why they came to Rome is a different subject.
Ultimately,their movements were directed by God.
They certainly didn’t go to Rome in order to found an official state church there.

and of course the Church was legal and sponsered elsewhere.

and of course no other patriarchs were martyred.

The point I was making is that the idea that the Church of Rome’s authority was based upon Rome’s imperial authority is wrong. Since the Church of Rome was illegal and persecuted,it is wrong to suggest that its privileges were based upon imperial authority. The Church of Rome had authority over the whole Church from the beginning,the earliest evidence being the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. The popes had universal jurisdiction The Fathers did not grant the Church of Rome its privileges because it was the royal city,as the Council of Chalcedon claimed,but because of the authority of Peter and Paul.

and the offiical decree making Catholicism the state Creed, which mentions the Pope of Rome (and Alexandria) by name, gave the Pope official status (and then there’s the title pontifax maximus).

If you try to pass counterfeit bills, they have to look like the real thing. So what do you make of the forgery the Donation of Constantine, and the idea of the Pope getting imperial honors when the main emperor left for New Rome?

The popes receiving imperial honors is one thing,and the idea of the papal authority being founded upon imperial authority is entirely another thing.

The source of the pope’s ecclesiastical authority is the man Peter,who was made the Head by Christ. The source of the Church of Rome’s ecclesiastical authority is Peter and Paul together,because that was their final destination and they were martyred there,consecrating Rome with their blood.

 

[Alexius]

If you try to pass counterfeit bills, they have to look like the real thing. So what do you make of the forgery the Donation of Constantine, and the idea of the Pope getting imperial honors when the main emperor left for New Rome?

So, Isa, what have you been up to lately…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So, Isa, what have you been up to lately…

LOL, checking the water marks.

 

[Alexius]

LOL, checking the water marks.

I know I’m gonna think of a good comeback on that…