The First Church

[guanophore]

Per a comment that Acts 9:31 contains the phrase “Ekklesia kath olos (post #68) – which means the “Catholic Church”, I have not been able to find that. I have looked at three Greek/English Bible lexicons (two on-line and one I own) – and the phrase in all three simply reads “ oun Ekklesia kata” (“so the church throughout”) or a variant of that. The word “kata” here defined as “throughout” is said to mean “down from and according to”.

Yes. The terms used here descriptively “kath holos” translate “throughout the whole” or “universal”. It is a reference to the fact that the One Church, founded by Christ, was one throughout all the world (in doctrine).

I am Catholic, and I have seen taught here and in multiple sources that the first recorded use of the term “Catholic” was  by Ignatius of Antioch in or around 110 A.D in one of his letters.

This was the first written evidence that the descriptors used by Luke had become a formal name.

The same church existed in the 60’s, 90’s, 100’s etc. and up to now. Ignatius uses the term in 110 AD as if it were a well known term – but from when, nobody knows. Just wondered what lexicon defines “kath” or “kata” in some as Catholic? Thanks.

What do you mean, “nobody knows”? You don’t think that the Catholics used this term to refer to themselves? It was the way they distinguished themselves from heretics and schismatics. This is exactly why Ignatius was explaining it. There were a lot of counterfie
ts.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, you do, unless you just want a catholics-only “debate”. The problem I have is, God was only able to control Adam and Eve for a week or two, and that without most of the distractions that attended later life.

It is the Catholic position that God created man out of His Love, and, being made in the image and likeness of God, they are free to choose. He never had any intention or desire to “control” them. Love sets the object free.

Yet, we are to believe that all who came after Jesus were somehow unable to drift from the script, so to speak, and so their opinions and conclusions are cast in granite for all time. Really? The gaps in the story are just too big to ignore…

james

The reason that the Church is infallible is because of her divine elements, not the human ones. Divinity does not “drift” away from the Truth.

 

[SnakeMauler]

To say that Christianity was wrong for over a thousand years until a few European men and more recently Americans started “reformIng” is insulting and ignorant.

 

[ClamDigger]

Yes, you do, unless you just want a catholics-only “debate”. The problem I have is, God was only able to control Adam and Eve for a week or two, and that without most of the distractions that attended later life.

How do you know how long God “was able to control” Adam and Eve? The Bible certainly doesn’t specify how long they were in Eden. It could have been centuries for all we know, as time was not perceived in the same way in Eden that it is now.

Yet, we are to believe that all who came after Jesus were somehow unable to drift from the script, so to speak, and so their opinions and conclusions are cast in granite for all time. Really? The gaps in the story are just too big to ignore…

Then why even believe in Jesus at all if you don’t accept the testimony of his apostles, disciples, and evangelists?

 

[Deconi]

OK- what proof can you or the Church you represent offer to categorically show that the first six on your list were indeed part of the “lineage”?<<

Perhaps you don’t read well or maybe it’s selective reading.

No, I just would like to see proof. After all, it worked for Thomas.<<

Thomas may have been in the account but the lesson is in the reply to him.

That said, that list alone is sufficient to establish the lineage (physically) back to Christ. It is something that cannot be undone… unless someone ‘destroys’ or ‘dismantles’ it.

Saying it ain’t so is rather defeatist, especially w/o some reason or ‘something.’

That was a poor attempt at humor, for which I apologize. We all came from Noah.<<

…but I kid you not!

Burden of proof, my friend. You come up with a “list” and ask me to prove against it? Please…

I didn’t ask for proof against it - knowing that you cannot, because it’s a historical list, meaning, it is a record of something as it occurs and it becomes history as time progresses.

What I asked for are ‘problem(s)’ you have against that list and your case or detail of that problem!

Please tell me what you are saying, I just do not understand your words.

‘Others’ - the other posters replying and imparting our common knowledge of things Catholic on this thread, specifically, never mind the wealth in the forum.

 

[SyCarl]

To keep it simple;

Jesus makes Simon the Cephas/Peter/Rock upon which He will build His Church. Not A church, but His Church. (His words, not mine) Matt:16.

1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)

Is this part of the list certain?

Pope St. Anacletus
The second successor of St. Peter. **Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. **Among the moderns, Hergenröther (Hist. de l’église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Döllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that “they are, without doubt, the same person” and that “the ‘Catalogue of Liberius’ merits little confidence before 230.” Duchesne, “Origines chretiennes”, ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines”, says “we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus — Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology.” That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91.

newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm

 

[guanophore]

To say that Christianity was wrong for over a thousand years until a few European men and more recently Americans started “reformIng” is insulting and ignorant.

Yes, but the wolfish messages given to the European population by the corrupt clerics against whom the Reformers rebelled were equally insulting and ignorant.

 

[SteveVH]

Is this part of the list certain?

Pope St. Anacletus
The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenröther (Hist. de l’église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Döllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that “they are, without doubt, the same person” and that “the ‘Catalogue of Liberius’ merits little confidence before 230.” Duchesne, “Origines chretiennes”, ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines”, says “we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus — Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology.” That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91.

The only question your quote brings up is whether Antecletus and Cletus are one and the same person or two different people. That Antecletus is the third Pope is not in question. It is also not surprising that we don’t know much about him. Bishops in general were short lived during that time as they were persecuted and most suffered martyrdom.

 

[SyCarl]

The only question your quote brings up is whether Antecletus and Cletus are one and the same person or two different people. That Antecletus is the third Pope is not in question. It is also not surprising that we don’t know much about him. Bishops in general were short lived during that time as they were persecuted and most suffered martyrdom.

Some of the sources point to Anacletus, Anencletus and Cletus as the same person. Others have Anacletus and Cletus as separate person. Then as noted, Tertulian leaves him out entirely. Then there is the difference in order. Who came first Clement or Anacletus/Cletus.

When the Catholic Church empasizes a continuous line from Peter, it seems problematic that the first links in that chain are uncertain.

 

[SteveVH]

Some of the sources point to Anacletus, Anencletus and Cletus as the same person. Others have Anacletus and Cletus as separate person. Then as noted, Tertulian leaves him out entirely. Then there is the difference in order. Who came first Clement or Anacletus/Cletus.

When the Catholic Church empasizes a continuous line from Peter, it seems problematic that the first links in that chain are uncertain.

From your own quotation:

We can accept the list of Irenaeus — Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus.

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus consider them to be the same person. I have no idea why Tertulian leaves him out ( I haven’t researched that matter) but obviously the majority include him. To answer your question, based upon the evidence, Antecletus preceded Clement.

 

[SyCarl]

From your own quotation:

Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus consider them to be the same person. I have no idea why Tertulian leaves him out ( I haven’t researched that matter) but obviously the majority include him. To answer your question, based upon the evidence, Antecletus preceded Clement.

What is the reason for preferring Ireaneus over the others? Surely on such an important issue one would expect the early authors to agree. It does not lead be to confidence in the Catholic position.

The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia included this just before the part you quoted.

we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little?

It seems the selection of Irenaeus’ listing is just a matter of convenience not certainty.

 

[SteveVH]

What is the reason for preferring Ireaneus over the others? Surely on such an important issue one would expect the early authors to agree. It does not lead be to confidence in the Catholic position.

The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia included this just before the part you quoted.

It seems the selection of Irenaeus’ listing is just a matter of convenience not certainty.

If Irenaeus were the only one making the claim I might agree with you. You choose to focus on the only one (Tertullian) that leaves Antecletus out of the line up. If you understood who he was you would understand why Irenaeus and the others who agree with him are considered more credible sources:

"His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218). It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own.

Catholic Encyclopedia - (QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS).

 

[SyCarl]

If Irenaeus were the only one making the claim I might agree with you. You choose to focus on the only one (Tertullian) that leaves Antecletus out of the line up. If you understood who he was you would understand why Irenaeus and the others who agree with him are considered more credible sources:

Catholic Encyclopedia - (QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS).

I know that Tertullian became a heretic but does that mean his statement as to succession has no merit. It is not just whether Anacletus and Cletus are the same person. It is also the difference in order of succession. Did Clement come before or after Cletus? Why would Ireneaus say before and Augustine say after?

 

[confusedius]

I didn’t ask for proof against it - knowing that you cannot, because it’s a historical list, meaning, it is a record of something as it occurs and it becomes history as time progresses.

What I asked for are ‘problem(s)’ you have against that list and your case or detail of that problem!

This is the kind of thing that causes my doubts…

watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-was-not-first-pope-conclusive.html

james

 

[rinnie]

I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!

Well here is how I see it. St Peter was buried and started the Church in Rome. It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

Now the first Church was started on the day of Pentecost. Now was it the same as the Roman Catholic Church? Or did St Peter start other Church’s.

So the reason we call the First Church the Roman Catholic Church is because it was started by St. Peter. There is only ONE Church.

When we say the Roman Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH is because of its teachings not its place as in a building. We know it is the One True Church because it is still in Rome and it was also Started by St Paul.

It would be like saying today St Mary’s is the ONE TRUE CHURCH, and having a fellow Roman Catholic saying oh no ITs St Jude. Then they argue because one building was there before another.

Its not the building or where the Church was started!! It is the Teaching of the first Church. And the Roman Catholic Church is the same teaching as the upper room on the day of Pentecost. OR you would have to say that ST Peter and ST Paul did not teach the true word of God.

But that is why we say the RCC is the first Church. We can tie it directly to ST Paul and St Peter. Its the teachings not the Church itself.

 

[elvisman]

I know that Tertullian became a heretic but does that mean his statement as to succession has no merit. It is not just whether Anacletus and Cletus are the same person. It is also the difference in order of succession. Did Clement come before or after Cletus? Why would Ireneaus say before and Augustine say after?

Because NONE of these men were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Whether Augustine or Iranaeus or Tertullian mixed up the chronological order of popes is irrelevant because ALL of them show Apostolic succession.

**You are nitpicking in the wrong place . . . **

 

[rinnie]

This is the kind of thing that causes my doubts…

watchmanforjesus.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-was-not-first-pope-conclusive.html

james

Yes it bothers me also. Especially when Jesus didn’t talk to his Apostles in Greek. This is where you get someone to try to show you something and they start off with a lie right from the start.

So before you doubt the teachings of the Catholic Church first go and investigate and see what was the Language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. That should be your first:newidea:

 

[guanophore]

Well here is how I see it. St Peter was buried and started the Church in Rome. It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

Hopefully not in that order! Actually, the church in Rome was already in full swing before Peter and Paul arrived.

And the Catholic Church was not called “Roman” until the Reformation. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

It contains a Latin (Roman) Rite, which happens to be the largest here in the West, and is presided over by the Successor of Peter, who is in Rome.

 So the reason we call the First Church the Roman Catholic Church is because it was started by St. Peter. There is only ONE Church.

No, Rinnie. It was called “Roman” as a prejudicial slur given by Protestants and heretics to distinguish themselves from the Church founded by Christ.

When we say the Roman Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH is because of its teachings not its place as in a building. We know it is the One True Church because it is still in Rome and it was also Started by St Paul.

No, Rinnie. The Catholic Church was not started by Paul, or by Peter. It is Jesus’ Church,a nd it has no other founder but Him.

Its not the building or where the Church was started!! It is the Teaching of the first Church. And the Roman Catholic Church is the same teaching as the upper room on the day of Pentecost. OR you would have to say that ST Peter and ST Paul did not teach the true word of God.

Now you are talkin’! Preach it sister.

 

[guanophore]

What is the reason for preferring Ireaneus over the others?

This is a very good question. The Church relied primarily upon sacred tradition in the beginning. As the scriptures were penned, they became a foundational part of the divine revelation. To the extent that the early fathers embody the divine revelation (thorugh sacred tradition and sacred scripture) their works are reliable. To the extent that they depart, they are not considered an accurate witness (such as Tertullians heresies). But, I do agree that, even if a hereitc is writing, the content is valuable as an historical reference… We just place the credence in what God has revealed to the Church primarily.

Surely on such an important issue one would expect the early authors to agree. It does not lead be to confidence in the Catholic position.

Why would one expect such a thing? At one point, 80% of the Church had fallen into the Arian heresy. I think the opposite is true. The fact that God used the minority to preserve the Truth is what gives credence to the Catholic position.

It seems the selection of Irenaeus’ listing is just a matter of convenience not certainty.

Certainly Irenaeus is more orthodox across the board. I agree with elvisman, his writings are not considered inspired, but they adhere more closely to the Teachings of the Apostles than most of the others.

 

[SyCarl]

Certainly Irenaeus is more orthodox across the board. I agree with elvisman, his writings are not considered inspired, but they adhere more closely to the Teachings of the Apostles than most of the others.

Including Augustine?