Churches of Rome

[garytb]

Thank you for your reply, gtb.

The explanation put forth by many scholars is simply that there was more than one gathering or assembly of Christians in Rome. Given the fact that persecution was occurring and that Rome was a large city, with a large number of believers, it seems reasonable to conclude that the believers wouldn’t try to gather in one place at one time.

Other cities with smaller populations of believers or less persecution might be the host of only one Christian assembly hence the reference to one church rather than churches.

I’d think that the suggestion of any other reason for separation among the believers in Rome would be an anachronism.

Hope this helps.

What is anachronistic about believing there were more than one Roman Church?
Would it not be also anachronistic to conclude that it was simply one church would be anachronism as well?
gtb
Peace

 

[garytb]

You are expected to avoid baseless assertions of prejudice,a nd to cite your sources.

It seems on Catholic prejuduces are allowed on Catholic forums?

This is a Catholic Forum for answering Catholic questions, not a venue for you to pander corrupted representations of history as if they are accurate, and not cite your sources in doing so.

Are not Protestants welcome here?
PUH_LEEZE!

Most of us here at CAF have studied the history of the Church, and we will not fall for that pungently scented manure.

I am sure you have studied that there is no substantiation for Jesus Christ beginning the Catholic Church in 31 A.D. in Jerusalem or do you disagree with this statement, if so please substantiate your woud-be claim.
Thank you gtb
peace.

Yes, let’s try this again. Constantine had no authority to “divide up the church”.

I never suggested he had any church authority, many quite frankly that he only had a death bed conversion and we all know how likely that is?
I doubt if he was a Christian, but providing for the sake of argument that he was, what of it?
He divided the area into 4 or 5 prefects and he himself went to Constantinople.

If he made any divisions, they were secular and political.

I would agree originally, then he sought to bring organization to the church and used his previous format and gave power to the bishops to rule in civil matters in each area.

We can see that parishes and diocese already existed because each of the letters in the book of Revelaiton is addressed to one.

Demonstrate that please?

peace…

 

[heisenburg]

With humble respect…

Constantine did NOT establish the Catholic Church, or even the Roman Rite… Basically, what he did was ask the Christian leaders of the day (ie, Catholic Bishops) to let him know what they believe for the purpose of making the practice of Christianity Legal. It is well documented that he did not even become a Christian till very very late in his life. That being said, this is where we get the Nician creed from. It is interesting to note that Constantine was not there.

What is very interesting about this point in time is that it is the only time where there were two distinct versions of Christianity. Arianism, and for now, I will call it Creedism. (those that supported what was put in the Nician Creed). There was not third or forth or fifth version you could choose from unlike today where there are countless versions of what it means to be Christian, and thats just in this side of town.

Anyhow…

If (1) you believe the bible when scripture say that hell will not prevail against, and that He will not leave his flock, that would mean one of the two absolutely has to be right. Why? if both are wrong, then that would mean that God left his people to the wilderness with no teaching and no instruction. Not even a bible. (that came later circa 382AD)

So, You have two choices, Arianism, or Creedism… It is interesting to note that Arianism died out soon after the meeting. (though some aspects of it are creeping back into some Protestant churches)

Therefore… You can look at the Creed produced and say “Does my theology match up” If not, you know who is right because of the nature of “Not leaving his flock”. Creedism.

If, also, you have theologies that are counter to Creedism, then you also know your views must be wrong.

Do not decree the Council as a Conspiracy… This does nothing but twists history. Rejoice in the Council because it gives us a point in time where we can actually KNOW what is proper Christian teaching separate from any claim the Catholic Church makes.

Let me reiterate… Constantine had NOTHING to do with the formation of the Catholic Church. Anyone that teaches this shows at best lack of knowledge, but at worst deceit. neither are really traits you want in a Christian

In Christ

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for your reply, gtb.

What is anachronistic about believing there were more than one Roman Church?
Would it not be also anachronistic to conclude that it was simply one church would be anachronism as well?
gtb
Peace

The believers saw themselves as belonging to One Body, One FAith, with One Lord. Although they may have gathered in small groups, they did not see themselves separated from one another as “churches” do today.

It seems on Catholic prejuduces are allowed on Catholic forums?

It seems that way to me to. I am not justifying that either.

Are not Protestants welcome here?
PUH_LEEZE!

That depends entirely upon their conduct.

I am sure you have studied that there is no substantiation for Jesus Christ beginning the Catholic Church in 31 A.D. in Jerusalem or do you disagree with this statement, if so please substantiate your woud-be claim.
Thank you gtb
peace.

I guess we see it differently. It may have been 33 AD? Do you deny that Jesus started a Church, or do you just deny that the believers were Catholic?

I never suggested he had any church authority, many quite frankly that he only had a death bed conversion and we all know how likely that is?

If Constantine never had any church authority, how is it that he “divided the churches”?

I doubt if he was a Christian, but providing for the sake of argument that he was, what of it?
He divided the area into 4 or 5 prefects and he himself went to Constantinople.

Yes, but that is not what you purported at first. You said that Constantine invented the diocese, and split the Church up.

I would agree originally, then he sought to bring organization to the church and used his previous format and gave power to the bishops to rule in civil matters in each area. Demonstrate that please?

Since it is you who are claiming that Constantine had any influence to empower bishops, I think it is up to you to demonstrate that, please? The powers of bishops came from the Apostles, and Constantine was never part of any Apostolic succession, and therefore, had no power to create divisions in the Church or to “give power to bishops”.

peace…

 

[Fidelis]

Well even without Wylie there is evidence that the first diocese wasestablished with Constantine I. Wylie was the one I knew off the top of my head. I would appreciate you refer to the material as Protestant material. The very Idea of Protestant is to Protest Roman Catholicism, so that goes with the inclusion of the term Protestant. I do not relagate your material to Anti-Protestant or Pro-Semi-pelegian or anything with such pejorative language as you choose to use. We can both be charitable to each other without the addition of derogatory terms. If disagree with the material cited, by all means tell me so, but refrain from the imflammatory comments, please. The sword cuts both ways would you not agree?

I understand that some Protestants seem to be very doting to Catholicism, I agree. But many as you attest affirm a stern disagreement as I may have indicated, but I myself have been gracious and upright with my comments on this forum. I haven’t posted much, just read the few remarks I have made and let me konw if I am not charitable, please.
By his grace,
gtb

peace

To disagree with someone is not to be anti-something. But material by non-Catholics that contains distortions and attempts to put the Catholic Church in the worst possible light is by definition anti-Catholic.

There is nothing uncharitable about pointing out the obvious and the factual. I stand by my assesment of Wylie and his ilk.

 

[garytb]

To disagree with someone is not to be anti-something. But material by non-Catholics that contains distortions and attempts to put the Catholic Church in the worst possible light is by definition anti-Catholic.

There is nothing uncharitable about pointing out the obvious and the factual. I stand by my assesment of Wylie and his ilk.

So this makes you an anti-reformer, by your own assertions.
gtb

 

[garytb]

With humble respect…

Constantine did NOT establish the Catholic Church, or even the Roman Rite…

Not dismissing your post, but I am very short on time. Suffice for now, I never did assert that Constantine founded anything other than the original diocese; not the Catholic Church.
Thank you for your considerate reply, I will be replying to the rest of your response as soon as I can.
God be with you and thank you for your charity,
gtb

 

[Milliardo]

Why is the book of Romans refer to more than one church in Rome?
Peace.

Usually this would mean that Rome was made up of more than one Christian community, plain and simple, much like the reference to Ephesus or Antioch would point to existing Christian communities there at that time. I agree with what guanaphore posted–they see themselves as belonging to one body in Christ, not separated at all in belief or faith.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

More on Wylie.

Here’s an endorsement of his book from one of the most notorious anti-Catholics of our time:

"Nuff said.

Anything endorsed by Ian Paisley can be thrown in the trash.

In regards to the OP, as a couple of other posters said on here, it is likely that there were several different communities of Christians in Rome. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there were different Churches with different beliefs, it just means that there were different groups that Paul was writing to.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Fidelis]

Originally Posted by Fidelis
To disagree with someone is not to be anti-something. But material by non-Catholics that contains distortions and attempts to put the Catholic Church in the worst possible light is by definition anti-Catholic.

Actually, at the most it would make me anti-Wylie and anti-anti-Catholicism, since he and his particular brand of anti-Catholicism was focus of my remarks. Guilty as charged.

I have no problem with someone having Reformation views, but I will not abide calumny.

 

[annem]

Why is the book of Romans refer to more than one church in Rome?

I am not an expert but at the time Paul wrote the various congregations were divided into house churches. That is, houses where the early Catholics met. We know of the location of many of them, some of which became actual churches. We can assume that there must have been more than one house church in Rome, not only because of this reference, but because of two other references by non-Catholics. First, the famous “Chrestos” one in which so many Catholics were expelled from Rome (although it is not positive that this referred to Christ) and second, because by mid sixties Nero could have “an immense multitude” of Catholics killed.

Or is this all wrong? Comments?

Annem