S
Seraphim73
Guest
Yes I agree. Perhaps you could have a discussion with steve b and any other posters here who make that argument.
- Status
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Good, then we agree steve b’s argument is absurd. Hopefully we can avoid having it again in the future.
D
dronald
Guest
As said earlier:So your position is that Ignatius was not possibly using the phrase “catholic church” as a proper noun?
How do you know this?
The idea that one would call themselves “Catholic” as a proper noun without the following word “Church” does not make sense.
“I’m a Catholic” would be the weirdest statement ever. Essentially it would be saying, “I’m a throughout all” or “I’m a universal of the whole.” It would be a silly thing to say.
No one person would call themselves “Catholic” but would say they are a part of the Catholic Church in that they are part of the whole, completed, universal, throughout everywhere, Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
steve b’s questions in post #9 have been asked before, and you have failed to answer every time. Oh, you have responded…but you have never given us a date or quoted a Church Father…which you love to do on every other topic. Why so silent now, Joey?
The OP said that the Orthodox claim to be the oldest church and you asserted that this is true. However, as even your use of the relatively new name “Orthodox Church” suggests, this is simply a falsehood that leads people away from the one, true Church established by Jesus Christ: the Catholic Church.
You will be refuted each and every time you make such claims in order that the the spiritual lives of those who read your posts might be protected.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And what is your personal opinion regarding the approximate time frame by which the transition from adjective to proper noun would have been complete?
C
cottice
Guest
What lunacy!!! It’s the Catholic Church. The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church has never existed (unless you are referring to the diocese of Rome Italy). Get it? Here are some other references to the name from the early church writers:
From the Martyrdom of Polycarp
“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
Note that Polycarp was a bishop of the Catholic Chiurch not the Orthodox Church. From The Muratorian Canon
"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).
Again it is the Catholic Church not the Orthodox. Then we look at the council of Nicea and we read:
“But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes” (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).
“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, both that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution” (Canon 8).
…
“Concerning the Paulianists who take refuge with the Catholic Church, a decree has been published that they should be fully baptized. If, however, any of these in times past have been in the clerical order, if indeed they have appeared spotless and above reproach, after being baptized, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church” (Canon 9).
No mention of the Orthodox Church. Follow that with the Council of Chalcedon:
“Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, this sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptized among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church” (Canon 14 [A.D. 451]).
Again this council mentions the Catholic Church not the Orthodox church. Both of these are councils that are accepted by the Orthodox.
D
dronald
Guest
Perhaps when ‘Catholic’ referred to a person and not the Church. Do you have the earliest reference to a Catholic person? I’ve been looking but I can’t find anything.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, I don’t. I think the Fathers thought of themselves as members of a body and not as individuals.
However, here are some of the Church Fathers who obviously refer to the Catholic Church as a proper noun:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).
To say that this really means the “whole universal church throughout the world” is ridiculously redundant.
“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).
How can the “universal church” be located in one specific location, Smyrna?
“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).
Same as before.
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Again, to say the “universal church possesses…throughout the whole world” would be redundant.
So, check the dates of those writings. Middle of the second century just as Kelly said, and just a few years after Ignatius wrote.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No one has refuted anything. There is nothing for you to refute. I’m not making the argument about names. I’m simply stating the opposite of steve b’s argument to illustrate it’s absurdity. You keep repeating that it’s absurd to say that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church St Ignatius referred to because of the qualifier “Roman.” But then you don’t extend that same logic to qualifier “Orthodox.” It’s a complete non sequitur. Both Churches make the same claims about themselves. Both use qualifiers in modern parlance to clarify and distinguish themselves. You use “Roman” Catholic Church and we use “Orthodox” Catholic Church. And if you want to see references to the “orthodox” faith take some time and read the acts and sessions of the ecumenical councils. You might learn a thing or two.
D
dronald
Guest
I agree with this.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Yes but it doesn’t mention the Roman Catholic Church.
C
cottice
Guest
ARE YOU DENSE??? No really? Here is why I ask. Several people have pointed out to you that we do not use the term ‘Roman’ Catholic Church. That was a name invented by protestants [King Henry VIII] in an age when Nationalism was in vogue. It’s purpose was to cast the Catholic Church as something foreign. Thus the pope was portrayed as a foreign ruler. But the correct name is the Catholic Church. Always has been; is now and always will be no matter what some protestant heretic says. Now do you get it??? I wonder.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It is a historical fact that at some point in history, the Orthodox churches were separated from the See of Peter. And at some point, they recognized they needed a new name to distinguish themselves from the Church which had from antiquity been called the “Catholic Church”.
Wikipedia offers this:
Historically, the term Greek Orthodox has also been used to describe all Eastern Orthodox Churches, since “Greek” in “Greek Orthodox” can refer to the Greek heritage of the Byzantine Empire. During eight centuries of Christian history, most major intellectual, cultural, and social developments in the Christian church took place within the Empire or in the sphere of its influence, thus most parts of the liturgy, traditions, and practices of the church of Constantinople were adopted by all, and still provide the basic patterns of contemporary Orthodoxy. However, the appellation “Greek” was abandoned by Slavic and other national orthodox churches in connection with their peoples’ national awakenings, from as early as the 10th century A.D.
First you were the “Greek Orthodox Church”, but as of the 10th century, you are simply the “Orthodox Church”.
Well, that’s Wiki, but at least we have something to work with.
Since you have actually read the documents you are recommending to me, perhaps you can pull something from them quickly, yes? If you do come up with a quote from the Early Church Fathers (or even anything later) that even hints at the first use of the phrase “Orthodox Church” as a proper noun, do let us know, won’t you?
Thanks.
D
dronald
Guest
So since my Evangelical Pastor recommended this book and you have also mentioned it, I decided to order it! Perhaps we can have a discussion about it afterwards?
Again, I would love a review with your thoughts on this book.
D
dronald
Guest
Are you acting in Christ?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Perhaps you have noticed that occasionally Paul and Jesus lot a little testy when people were being needlessly obstinate?
D
dronald
Guest
The onus is not on you to justify his words, but rather on him.
If by asking “Are you being dense?” in full capitals with three question marks is believed by him to be acting Christlike then the poster may respond, “Yes, as shown by Jesus here…” But if the poster meant to be demeaning, sarcastic, etc, then perhaps he will see that “ARE YOU DENSE???” may not be the most Christian response.
I was honestly curious if the poster was trying to imitate Christ with that sort of post. If not, then there’s always room for improvement; but if so, I do disagree in this case, even though I know Jesus flipped a table or two.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I understand. I just think people are a little too quick to object when someone is indignant for justifiable reasons.
Paul had some rather harsh words for those he was unhappy with.
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I may be dense but I probably get more than you realize. And you do use the term “Roman” Catholic Church.
Roman Catholic Church of Eastern Oklahoma
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Until one has achieved divine dispassionand detachment, he should guard against falling into the delusion of thinking that he is gifted with the dispassion and the discernment which enabled the saints to make such rebukes blamelessly.I understand. I just think people are a little too quick to object when someone is indignant for justifiable reasons.
Paul had some rather harsh words for those he was unhappy with.
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
- Status