If you believe that the CC is...?

[joe371]

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.,then why would anyone not want to belong to this church?

Stipulation: If you do not believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and can prove it (e.g. provide the name of the person who founded the Catholic Church and when) then I would certainly understand. Just looking for specific reasons (in light of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded by God).

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

And what is the Catholic church? Is the catholic church Rome and those that get its authenticity from Rome? Or is the Catholic church the little church down the road wherein the liturgy is sung and the Eucharist is received and Rome is just a part of that church?

That’s where the difference lies. Non Catholics are not reading Ignatius’ statements on the catholic church as meaning the roman church, they reading it as being the whole church is where the Bishop and his congregation reside. Rome can be part of that Catholic church, or it can be out of that catholic church.

 

[joe371]

And what is the Catholic church? Is the catholic church Rome and those that get its authenticity from Rome? Or is the Catholic church the little church down the road wherein the liturgy is sung and the Eucharist is received and Rome is just a part of that church?

That’s where the difference lies. Non Catholics are not reading Ignatius’ statements on the catholic church as meaning the roman church, they reading it as being the whole church is where the Bishop and his congregation reside. Rome can be part of that Catholic church, or it can be out of that catholic church.

If that little church down the road wherein the liturgy is sung and the Eucharist is received, was established by Jesus circa AD 33 on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, then it is the Catholic Church. Ignatius belonged to the same Catholic Church to which Jerome and Augustine belonged.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If that little church down the road wherein the liturgy is sung and the Eucharist is received, was established by Jesus circa AD 33 on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, then it is the Catholic Church. Ignatius belonged to the same Catholic Church to which Jerome and Augustine belonged.

Here’s the problem, we envision the catholic church a little differently. Is the whole of the church to be found in that one congregation which is part of the greater universal church? Or is the whole of the church to be found exclusively within Rome? Orthodox confess the creed too and we say we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church as well. When you appeal to Ignatius speaking on the Catholic church however, are you envisioning he means Rome here? No doubt He has Rome in mind, as he has Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and the churches of Greece and Asia minor in mind. But I do not think that he had Rome primarily in mind here any more than the other churches of God.

We at bottom line have a totally different conception of the Catholic church, and that is the dispute which needs to be reconciled first. Because only Roman Catholics can say yes to what you are saying, whereas everyone else will disagree with the assertion that he automatically meant your church specifically.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see where the verse in question mentions a geographical area. Christ didn’t say He would build His Church upon Peter in Rome.

So God states no geographical area in specifics, He did specifically mention Peter. God blessed Peters person and faith. Logically that’s the conclusion reached. So what is reached is only the dialogue of scripture in understanding. Rather repeated conversation.

The fact Peters chair resides in Rome is only indicative of where the Church is at this given moment geographically, no different than Alexandria etc.

God also never said the whole of the physical Church would be wherever Peter is. So where Peter is doesn’t indicate the entirety of where the Church is, only the starting point instituted by God which is always in the past/present/future. The starting point is the Church is built upon Peter which can be identified.

 

[adf417]

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.,then why would anyone not want to belong to this church?

Stipulation: If you do not believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and can prove it (e.g. provide the name of the person who founded the Catholic Church and when) then I would certainly understand. Just looking for specific reasons (in light of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded by God).

Hi Joe, I think the weakness to your argument above lies in the “e.g. Ignatius”. Too bad you cannot make a decent argument here on CAF and refer to “those like…” and not expect feed back based on “only Ignatius” as IgnatianPhilo has done.

I once tried this argument using the Jerome comment “…and he submitted to the church”. Trying to establish exactly what you are suggesting including a visible papal church, but the opponent just said that the church had already split prior to this.

Peace!!!

 

[joe371]

IgnatianPhilo;11857996]Here’s the problem, we envision the catholic church a little differently. Is the whole of the church to be found in that one congregation which is part of the greater universal church? Or is the whole of the church to be found exclusively within Rome?

The Catholic Church agrees with you: CCC817-821.

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe, I think the weakness to your argument above lies in the “e.g. Ignatius”. Too bad you cannot make a decent argument here on CAF and refer to “those like…” and not expect feed back based on “only Ignatius” as IgnatianPhilo has done.

I once tried this argument using the Jerome comment “…and he submitted to the church”. Trying to establish exactly what you are suggesting including a visible papal church, but the opponent just said that the church had already split prior to this.

Peace!!!

OK.

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. “people like” Ignatius of Antioch etc.,then why would anyone not want to belong to this church?

Stipulation: If you do not believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and can prove it (e.g. provide the name of the person who founded the Catholic Church and when) then I would certainly understand. Just looking for specific reasons (in light of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded by God).
Reply With Quote

 

[JonNC]

If the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.,then why would anyone not want to belong to this church?

Stipulation: If you do not believe that Jesus established the Catholic Church, and can prove it (e.g. provide the name of the person who founded the Catholic Church and when) then I would certainly understand. Just looking for specific reasons (in light of the knowledge that the Catholic Church was founded by God).

Hi Joe,

You know, right?

The Catholic Church is indeed, thank God, the Church Christ founded! Just not only and exclusively.

The Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[joe371]

Hi Joe,

You know, right?

The Catholic Church is indeed, thank God, the Church Christ founded! Just not only and exclusively.

The Church is the congregation of believers, where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

And what is the Catholic church? Is the catholic church Rome and those that get its authenticity from Rome? Or is the Catholic church the little church down the road wherein the liturgy is sung and the Eucharist is received and Rome is just a part of that church?

That’s where the difference lies. Non Catholics are not reading Ignatius’ statements on the catholic church as meaning the roman church, they reading it as being the whole church is where the Bishop and his congregation reside. Rome can be part of that Catholic church, or it can be out of that catholic church.

There actually is no “Roman Church”. Everyone in communion with Rome are the Roman Communion, which we also call “the Catholic Chruch”. (Edit: Sometimes people use “Roman Church” to mean the Latin Church, but that’s not correct terminology either.)

But that aside, I don’t believe this thread really applies to Orthodox, since the question is directed to those who believe that “the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.” which Orthodox obviously don’t believe.

 

[Peter_J]

But that aside, I don’t believe this thread really applies to Orthodox, since the question is directed to those who believe that “the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.” which Orthodox obviously don’t believe.

Or should I have said, “since the question is directed to those who believe that the Roman Communion is in fact the one etc”?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There actually is no “Roman Church”. Everyone in communion with Rome are the Roman Communion, which we also call “the Catholic Chruch”. (Edit: Sometimes people use “Roman Church” to mean the Latin Church, but that’s not correct terminology either.)

But that aside, I don’t believe this thread really applies to Orthodox, since the question is directed to those who believe that “the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.” which Orthodox obviously don’t believe.

Goodness gracious… I agree

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

There actually is no “Roman Church”. Everyone in communion with Rome are the Roman Communion, which we also call “the Catholic Chruch”. (Edit: Sometimes people use “Roman Church” to mean the Latin Church, but that’s not correct terminology either.)

But that aside, I don’t believe this thread really applies to Orthodox, since the question is directed to those who believe that "the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc." which Orthodox obviously don’t believe.

You don’t know much about orthodoxy then do you?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You don’t know much about orthodoxy then do you?

I know I don’t

 

[Peter_J]

You don’t know much about orthodoxy then do you?

I’m not too sure what to make of this (particularly concerning which part of my post you highlighted), except that my previous post might be clearer if I add this emphasis:
The Orthodox obviously don’t believe that the Roman Communion is the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.

I guess you thought I was saying something else, am I right?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’m not too sure what to make of this (particularly concerning which part of my post you highlighted), except that my previous post might be clearer if I add this emphasis:
The Orthodox obviously don’t believe that the Roman Communion is the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.

I guess you thought I was saying something else, am I right?

“since the question is directed to those who believe that “the Catholic Church is in fact the one church of Matthew 16 established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, to which the apostles and their successors belonged e.g. Ignatius of Antioch etc.” which Orthodox obviously don’t believe.”

I missed the “roman” part in your original quote. That being said, I think its a just a matter of fact that Ignatius did not belong to the roman communion, but if you want to argue for that, be my guest.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I see it not so much as wanting to argue for that (particularly on this thread) but rather wanting to acknowledge our disagreement … I.e. we think we are the original Church and you guys think you’re the original Church (which is occasionally glossed over on CAF).

As far as terminology, let me put it this way: I prefer to say “I belong to the Roman Communion” for clarity, rather than “I belong to the Catholic Church” … But if someone said the latter, I would tend to assume that he/she meant the former (unless of course I happened to **know **that he/she Orthodox, or Lutheran, or …).

P.S. And yes, I know it’s unwise to “assume”.

 

[dronald]

Well, I see it not so much as wanting to argue for that (particularly on this thread) but rather wanting to acknowledge our disagreement … I.e. we think we are the original Church and you guys think you’re the original Church (which is occasionally glossed over on CAF).

As far as terminology, let me put it this way: I prefer to say “I belong to the Roman Communion” for clarity, rather than “I belong to the Catholic Church” … But if someone said the latter, I would tend to assume that he/she meant the former (unless of course I happened to **know **that he/she Orthodox, or Lutheran, or …).

P.S. And yes, I know it’s unwise to “assume”.

I find this to be common here; the willingness to argue with Protestants but the unwillingness to discuss with Orthodox… why is that?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I find this to be common here; the willingness to argue with Protestants but the unwillingness to discuss with Orthodox… why is that?

Read up on forum guidelines:

Orthodox/Catholic Threads

A reminder on inter-faith dialogue

I am more than willing to argue with them, but our arguments are a tad different than with Protestants. Plus, unless we are deep into history (Our issues have accumulated over a thousand years…) most of the arguments are superficial. Plus they don’t have such attractive bullseye targets like the solas