Is the first Catholic Church Roman?

[Mystophilus]

Catholics have been calling us heretics for a while. Somehow, calling us names, not to mention declaring wars against us and killing us, has failed to encourage us to recant; in fact, all it has ever encouraged Protestants to do is to call Catholics names, declare wars against Catholics, and kill Catholics. The end result has not been the conversion of anyone, just five hundred years of stupid warfare and the murder of innocents

Then I would suggest rereading it. Nothing there claims that the Catholic actions are the beginning: it refers only to a process and to an end result. The first reference is to a Catholic action because a Catholic action in the present was its immediate context.

No one can argue against Newman’s statement.

No one needs to, since the mere existence of Protestant historians utterly disproves it. Newman was employing hyperbole.

When Ignatius said “do nothing without the bishop”, we know what he means

Actually, that one in his letter to the Smyrnaeans is interesting. The Greek does not say, “without the bishop”: it says, “χωρις επισκοπου”, literally “without bishop”. It is missing the article, the device which usually specifies that the noun (“bishop”, here) is a particular example rather than an abstract type. It does suggest that Smyrna ought to have been under episcopal guidance. Drawing the parallel which I presume you are across to Rome, that also suggests that Rome ought to have been under episcopal guidance, but Ignatius’ notable mentioning of all of the other bishops but not Rome’s lends weight to the theory that Rome did not have one of their own.

Clement used the royal “we” when talking to Corinth. That’s because he’s speaking for the Church.

While it is theoretically possible that the plural form is self-aggrandizing, it is rather more likely that the plural from is the result of the plural authorship, and that the letter was sent by the council of presbyters in Rome. The attribution of the letter to Clement happened later.

when Ignatius wrote to Rome "You have never envied any one; you have taught others.”
Why would he write about envy? What specifically is he talking about since he didn’t say that to or about any other church he wrote to?

Where is the only place in these letters where “envy” and teaching others comes up? Romans. OTOH, How many times did “envy” come up in Clement’s writing to Corinth? 20 times. He obviously was instructing then and admonishing them against envy. Ignatius wakes clear reference to Clement’s letter to Corinth

I am very sorry, but the mere fact of author A and author B using the same word would not constitute “clear reference” by one to the other, let alone establish the direction of that reference (A → B or B → A).

However, that is not even happening here, and your English translation is leading you astray. The term which Ignatius uses is εβασκανατε, often translated “envied”, but quite possibly better rendered “misled”, given its usage in Galatians 3:1. Meanwhile, 1 Clement uses ζηλος and φθονος, completely unrelated terms.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you know that why conceal or distort the truth?

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 67. Who were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it?
A. There were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it the souls of all those who died the friends of God, but could not enter heaven till the Ascension of Our Lord.

Thus Limbo was only until the Ascension.
Incorrect.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Canon 5
“Regarding the Tome [2] of the Westerns: we have also recognised those in Antioch who confess a single Godhead of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN1.HTM

Don’t you know that in Ephesians 6:9 St Paul teaches re “slaves”: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.”

Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al), but with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

Continued expressed antagonism to Christ and His Church fails to understand that She is the spotless spouse of Christ, and remains so forever. Thus She is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, art 39], despite the sins of Her members.So you say that the creed of Constantinople (381) did not say that we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father? The fact is that it was only a few hundred years later that the phrase filioque was added.
Also do you deny that Popes have held slaves? And that Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum diversas authorizing the enslavement of the Saracens, pagans and other unbelievers in Christ?
“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #82
So you say that the creed of Constantinople (381) did not say that we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father?

Post #79 shows the Council acknowledging “a single Godhead of Father and Son and Holy Spirit”, in 381. There is no conflict. Use the reference.

Also do you deny that Popes have held slaves? And that Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum diversas authorizing the enslavement of the Saracens, pagans and other unbelievers in Christ?

The papal bull *Dum Diversas *was a real papal bull but it in no way is it a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity.

If a man can sell his own skills and services for a period, he can do so permanently. Also, his right to sell his own services can be taken away if he diminishes his own dignity by serious crime, and so loses his right to self-determination. This happens with murderers, who can justly be obligated to work for the State in slavery until their deaths. “Perpetual servitude” here, equivalent to just servitude for a heinous crime – as with capital punishment for unprovoked and calculated murder, hardly unjust.

This repeats what Pope Innocent III and other popes expressed, while Pope Nicholas states clearly that this is a defensive and just war against people who are trying to destroy Catholic civilisation: fidem ipsam defendere.

You really need to learn the facts from reliable, trustworthy sources.

“Under Roman Law the slave was a chattel with no more rights than an animal. His master might seduce, mutilate, torture or kill him without any interference by the law.” [Sir Arnold Lunn, *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, Burns & Oates 1946, p 186, 188].

“The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery. The inalienable rights of the slave to marriage and then family were safeguarded from the first by the precepts of the Church, and were later secured by legal enactment in the Theodosian code, which was later revised and classified by Justinian (A.D. 527-565). The law followed where the Church had led. The granting of religious equality to slaves was a silent but tremendous revolution – emancipated slaves were often raised to the priesthood and even to the very Chair of St Peter, Pius I and Callistus I in the second and third centuries.” (Ibid. p 187).
[See *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 30].

 

[guanophore]

Well, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism and in Catholic catechism classes, all over the USA.

This is why most people thought it was a doctrine. If it is contained in a book with doctrines and taught by official catechists of the Chruch in classes, how are the faithful to tell the difference? But the truth is there are many levels of authority to what is taught and proclaimed in the CC. The teachings that can’t change are the doctrines that were taught by Christ and handed down to us from the Apostlles. These are among those that the Refomers changed.

And the creed declared at Constantinople proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. This can easily be checked.

And the wording change by he Latin Rite has been a problem ever since it was done. It is a major impediment to unification.

In any event, you appear to agree that the teaching on torture has changed, which was my point on changes in moral teachings of the Roman Catholic church.

As far as I know there was never any offcial teaching on using torture. At least, I have never seen any. That being said, it most certainly was practice to use torture, and it was widely used by church officials to gain confessions an d during the Inquisition to root out “heretics”. This is an example of the culture of the world manifesting itself in practices used by the Church. Tolerating improper cultural practices, however wrong, does not constitute teaching error.

Do you agree that slavery is wrong, but that Popes have held slaves?

The Church’s attitude about slavery is primarily based in the NT. If you have a complaint about the tolerance of slavery, the NT is the place to direct it. When the Church was formed, slavery was a practice all over the Roman Empire, including the East, so it is not something innovated by the Latin Rite as was the filoque.

 

[guanophore]

The Baltimore catechism was NOT an official Church document. It was written by the American Bishops (who are not infallible), not the Vatican or the Pope. The Church never had an official Catechism until Pope St. John Paul II

Oh posh, of course it was! I will concede that it does not carry the level of authority as other official documents of higher stature,but it was certainly 'official". Even the current catechism to which you refer is not considered infallible. The Bishops would not have published and used the Baltimore without approval from the Vatican.

So, the teaching on torture didn’t change. What people considered torture changed. You are confusing human interpretation (which is not infallible) with Church Teaching. The Church never said “this kind of torture is ok and this kind is not.”

I think this is the major issue, that people don’t understand that there are levels of teaching/authority. There are very few docuements that are considered infallible but most have various levels of authority.

Finally, let’s remember, when we say the “Church’s Teaching” we are referring to the magisterium. Not a group of Bishops or priests or nuns, but what the magisterium says.

 

[guanophore]

If you know that why conceal or distort the truth?

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 67. Who were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it?
A. There were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it the souls of all those who died the friends of God, but could not enter heaven till the Ascension of Our Lord.

Thus Limbo was only until the Ascension.
Incorrect.

No, Abu, no one is distorting anything. Limbo was taught for centuries,a nd was included in the official Baltimore Catechism. It was so widely taught that people assumed it was a doctrine of the Church.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Canon 5
“Regarding the Tome [2] of the Westerns: we have also recognised those in Antioch who confess a single Godhead of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN1.HTM

Check your history, Abu. Tomdstone is correct on this one.

 

[phil19034]

Sorry, but the same comment applies: the Vatican uses it.

The Vatican’s website is NOT an official document of the Church. All official documents refer to the Church as the Catholic Church. If your read the papers from Vatican II, you will not see “Roman Catholic Church” anywhere.

 

[steve_b]

No one needs to, since the mere existence of Protestant historians utterly disproves it. Newman was employing hyperbole.

Go deep in history yourself. Were Protestants in the 14th century for example? No. Go all the way back to the 1st century. Were ANY heresies in history considered Protestantism before Protestantism showed up? No

That’s not hyperbole.
M:

Actually, that one in his letter to the Smyrnaeans is interesting. The Greek does not say, “without the bishop”: it says, “χωρις επισκοπου”, literally “without bishop”. It is missing the article, the device which usually specifies that the noun (“bishop”, here) is a particular example rather than an abstract type. It does suggest that Smyrna ought to have been under episcopal guidance. Drawing the parallel which I presume you are across to Rome, that also suggests that Rome ought to have been under episcopal guidance, but Ignatius’ notable mentioning of all of the other bishops but not Rome’s lends weight to the theory that Rome did not have one of their own.

BTW, the Greek version I’m looking at has the articles.
M:

While it is theoretically possible that the plural form is self-aggrandizing, it is rather more likely that the plural from is the result of the plural authorship, and that the letter was sent by the council of presbyters in Rome. The attribution of the letter to Clement happened later.

By later do you mean Eusebius acknowledged Clement wrote his epistle and that the epistle was read in many Churches during his time and later?

How does that change anything?
M:

I am very sorry, but the mere fact of author A and author B using the same word would not constitute “clear reference” by one to the other, let alone establish the direction of that reference (A → B or B → A).

Since Eusebius wrote, that Clement’s letter was read in many churches of old (i.e. NOT restricted to Corinth alone) then Ignatius and other bishops as well, would be aware of Clement’s letter.
M:

However, that is not even happening here, and your English translation is leading you astray. The term which Ignatius uses is εβασκανατε, often translated “envied”, but quite possibly better rendered “misled”, given its usage in Galatians 3:1. Meanwhile, 1 Clement uses ζηλος and φθονος, completely unrelated terms.

I have no problem with misled. But I’ll go with the Catholic translation. And besides, to summarize, since Eusebius identified Clement’s letter with Clement, and his letter / epistle, was read in many churches of old, which means it was circulated outside Corinth Greece, then by the time Ignatius writes his letters many years later, he no doubt knows of Clements letter to Corinth by the time he writes Rome…

 

[phil19034]

Oh posh, of course it was! I will concede that it does not carry the level of authority as other official documents of higher stature,but it was certainly 'official". Even the current catechism to which you refer is not considered infallible. The Bishops would not have published and used the Baltimore without approval from the Vatican.

Fine, I won’t say “official.” But limbo for unbaptized babies was a popular THEORY but it was NEVER doctrine of the Church. And it was a theory that was very popular in the United States due to the Baltimore Catechism teaching it.

But the Baltimore Catechism was only used in the United States. Until Pope St. John Paul II, Catechisms were “privately” written by Priests, Bishops or even entire national Bishop’s Conferences, but they were only slightly more authoritative than Bishop Paprocki’s (Bishop of Springfield in Illinois) book “Holy Goals for Body and Soul”
secure.acceptiva.com/?cst=0e31e2 or a Catholic Sunday School text book.

Just because something is taught be a Bishop or a group of Bishops doesn’t make it magisterial teaching. Diocesan Bishops are not infallible.

Episode one of “Grab your Catechism” on ETWN talks about the history of the official Catechism from the Vatican and briefly discusses other local or national catechisms, like the Baltimore Catechism.

Believe it or not, while the Latin Churches in the Roman Rite are not as nationalized as the Eastern Churches in the Byzantine Rite, the Roman Rite Churches do differ some per country and even diocese. For example, in the United States, Catholics may now eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent. But in the United Kingdom, Catholics cannot eat meat on Friday’s year round. Some people say “ah… this is where the Church changed it’s teaching!” But it’s not. The teaching of the Church is that it’s a grave sin to purposefully not practice penance on Fridays and sinful to refrain from abstinence from meat on days proscribed by the Church. Bishops have the option of assigning Friday Penance or allowing Catholics to select their own penance each Friday. In the US, the Bishops have decided to allow Catholics to do our own penance each Friday. But in the UK, the Bishops have decided to reassign abstinence from meat for every Friday.

Point… just because someone is taught a theory or local customs, doesn’t mean that it’s magisterial teaching.

 

[Tomdstone]

Post #79 shows the Council acknowledging “a single Godhead of Father and Son and Holy Spirit”, in 381.

That is not the point I brought up. The question concerned the procession of the Holy Spirit. Why do you say that I was incorrect when I said that the creed of Constantinople said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Vatican’s website is NOT an official document of the Church. All official documents refer to the Church as the Catholic Church. If your read the papers from Vatican II, you will not see “Roman Catholic Church” anywhere.

Should a Roman Catholic trust the Vatican website as authoritative or not?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed.