To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[steve_b]

Well I can see that you’ve just proved you can’t read Latin or Greek and apparently you have difficulty reading my posts.

Ok, following is the Latin text for Book 3, Chapter 3, verse 1Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatum, in omni Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare cos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in ecclessis, et successiones eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur.Here again, as stated in the post where I originally quoted it, is the Latin text from the end of Book 1, Chapter 10, verse 3cum ea,quae est Ecclesia universa, unam et eandem fidem habeat in universo mundo, quemadmodum praediximusMy point is that you don’t have a point, since the word “catholic” does not actually exist in the Latin or Greek text, but only in an apparently bad English translation.

I have posted the following explanation ***“what Catholic means” ***many times on this thread catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means,. I’ve posted it as a stand alone link #245, #250 , #255 , and also within this link #34, which I used here #169 , and #187 , #197 . So your point has already been addressed 4 times by me on this thread, before you and I started conversing here #247

From the opening statement of "what Catholic means" (all emphasis mine)

This tract is also geared towards showing what Protestant historians found as well

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others. The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written. Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: *“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . *What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1). …"
From catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means,

Given

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.”

I’ve merely added the question, where does kataholos ekklesia appear in scripture?

Acts 9:31. ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς
p:

"Some scholars have made the comment …"

Really? Without names, properly referenced, that statement is meaningless as does what follows

 

[prodromos]

I’m well aware of who Polycarp was. You need to up your game. You’re debating with educated adults here. You didn’t do anything to support your notion that somehow St. Irenaeaus was prophesying that whatever church officially had “Catholic” in in it’s name would be the successor of the second century catholic and apostolic church.

He also needs to read beyond the three verses he quotes from Irenaeus Book 3, Chapter 3, as Irenaeus leaves discussing the succession of bishops in Rome and speaks of the succession in Ephesus, speaking of Polycarp specifically.

 

[prodromos]

I have posted the following explanation ***“what Catholic means” ***many times on this thread catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means,. I’ve posted it as a stand alone link #245, #250 , #255 , and also within this link #34, which I used here #169 , and #187 , #197 . So your point has already been addressed 4 times by me on this thread, before you and I started conversing here #247

From the opening statement of "what Catholic means" (all emphasis mine)

This tract is also geared towards showing what Protestant historians found as well

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others. The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written. Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: *“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . *What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1). …"
From catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means,

Given

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.”

I’ve merely added the question, where does kataholos ekklesia appear in scripture?

Acts 9:31. ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς

Really? Without names, properly referenced, that statement is meaningless as does what follows

LOL

 

[steve_b]

BTW steve b, you also seem to be confusing my posts with Contarini’s and vice versa.

Where?

 

[steve_b]

Expatreprocedit:

I’m well aware of who Polycarp was. You need to up your game. You’re debating with educated adults here. You didn’t do anything to support your notion that somehow St. Irenaeaus was prophesying that whatever church officially had “Catholic” in in it’s name would be the successor of the second century catholic and apostolic church.

Yes I did. Just not with you. #[264 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14186531&postcount=264)

I would just ask you,

What part of Irenaeus point, by talking about apostolic succession of office in Church government, from Peter, to (12) bishops who succeed Peter, by name, from Rome, down to Irenaeus day, do you not understand? THAT’s as specific on which Church he’s talking about as one can get. His point is, every Church must agree with this Church (Church of Rome) on account of it’s preeminent authority? What part of that is not clear?

• who is Irenaeus saying EVERY Church is to agree with?
• Smyrna? No.
• Antioch? No.
• Alexandria? No.
• Jerusalem? No.
• Rome? Yes

And so there is no confusion, he names names in line of succession from Peter in Rome, down to his day so no one misses his point… correct? He names Linus, Anacletus, Clement…+ 9 more bishops of Rome

Irenaeus makes these other points.

• Those who keep to this understanding are those where the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist **everywhere. **Ergo those who don’t keep this tradition, are unfaithful because they don’t preserve apostolic tradition, and they are the ones Irenaeus is writing against
• he refutes the notion that every Church EVERYWHERE agreeing with the bishop of Rome is a novelty of later invention

One could also ask

• Is this a modern interpretation of the papacy? I think it safe to say, Irenaeus hardly qualifies as “modern”.
• Irenaeus says he got his teaching here from apostolic tradition from Peter and Paul at Rome, through bishops and faithful men who preserved the apostolic tradition FAITHFULLY down to his day

And that succession continues

Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-3

 

[po18guy]

As to the OP: Cardinal Newman was not primarily a historian. All believers should investigate their own denomination for its beginnings. We Catholics must, as we are under relentless attack from all sides. Hyperbole? Try defending Catholicism on YouTube, for example.

The vast majority of denominations are decades old and no more. The Americas are the most egregious examples of the explosion of denominations. Great theological license was taken, and is being taken, and by its very nature this produces division.

For those who are Lutheran, study Luther himself - pondering his erratic behavior and his personal damning of everyone one who disagreed with him and, IMO, that ‘should’ spur you on to look beyond Luther. The same with Calvin, Zwingli, Simons, Wycliffe, Knox, you name them. All split off and founded denominations after their private opinions differed with their brothers. Where is the truth in that?

How can a Protestant ever be certain of the truth, since innumerable versions exist within the umbrella called “protestantism.” Did Jesus teach that each of us should consult the texts and decide for ourselves? No, He did not. He - God made man - intended that an authoritative Church perpetuate the faith.

Those communities which are founded on the bible violate our Lord’s core principle. I am not saying that those who follow such beliefs are ‘bad Christians’ or do not love Christ. Most of them are very fervent lovers of Christ. It is simply that they are utterly lacking the foundation and infinite depth that the Church founded by Christ contains.

 

[prodromos]

Where?

#275

 

[prodromos]

Yes I did. Just not with you. #264

I would just ask you,

What part of Irenaeus point, by talking about apostolic succession of office in Church government, from Peter, to (12) bishops who succeed Peter, by name, from Rome, down to Irenaeus day, do you not understand?

Right from the outset you misrepresent St Irenaeus’ claims. He does not list a succession of bishops from St Peter, but from both St Peter and St Paul.

THAT’s as specific on which Church he’s talking about as one can get. His point is, every Church must agree with this Church (Church of Rome) on account of it’s preeminent authority? What part of that is not clear?

I’ll simply respond with the assessment of Abbe Guettee from chapter 3 of his book The Papacy:*Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern ChurchesRome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters—for political business or private interests—and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.

Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse. St. Iræneus, In Hæres. Lib. III. cap. iii. This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always." But," he adds, “as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries.” We must quote the text of St. Irenæus, that it may be compared with our translation, “Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam præterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quæ est ab Apostolis, Traditio.”

The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with—which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximæ, antiquissimæ, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient—every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries—(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe,” not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.

 

[prodromos]

Abbe Guettee continued… In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world.

How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessaryto adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true—thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city—but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation.

It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops.

It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of St. Irenæus turns upon the sense to be given to the word convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and without that it is impossible to be in the unity. If the word means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect to it.

We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense of it—we can add many others to this already conclusive proof.

If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going—whether together or separately.

In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne’s edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: “All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”

Greek Text: καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβληκότες.

Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt.”

In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne’s edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy’s house,” etc.

In Greek: “Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ.”

The Latin translator renders this “Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemæum.”

The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenæus’s works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words συμβαίνειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ρωμαίων Ἐκκλησίαν. And he pretends that συμβαίνειν πρὸς τινα is the same thing as συμβαίνειν τινί.

Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good father has used the word συμβαίνειν. It would seem to us more natural and logical to look for the unknown word among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use συμβαίνειν but συμβεβληκότες, which has the sense of a running together toward a place, or of συνελθότες, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used these words to express the idea for which the translator used convenire.

In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives to the word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with. Why then give it this sense in the famous text in question, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found?

Nothing is wanting to prove that it is impossible to give to the words of St. Irenæus the sense attributed to them by the Romish theologians. The good father then has simply said that, the concourse of Believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by the necessities of their business, because that city was the first and most powerful of the Empire, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic tradition, because those Believers carried there the Faith of the Churches to which they belonged.

 

[Rohzek]

Source?

If things are as nebulous as you describe, how then could anyone be an “outsider”, a heretic or schismatic, since everyone with differing beliefs can name themselves either catholic or orthodox?

Source?

Look up the terms in the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

[steve_b]

Right from the outset you misrepresent St Irenaeus’ claims. He does not list a succession of bishops from St Peter, but from both St Peter and St Paul.

I’ll simply respond with the assessment of Abbe Guettee from chapter 3 of his book The Papacy:*Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern ChurchesRome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters—for political business or private interests—and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.

*Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse. *St. Iræneus, In Hæres. Lib. III. cap. iii. This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always." But," he adds, “as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should; for every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries.” We must quote the text of St. Irenæus, that it may be compared with our translation, “Quoniam valde longum est, in hoc, tali volumine omnium eccelesiarum enumerare successiones; maximæ et antiquissimæ et omnibus cognitæ, a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paullo, Romæ fundatæ et constitutæ Ecclesiae, eam quam habet ab Apostolis Traditionem et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquomodo, vel per coecitatem et malam sententiam præterquam oportet colligunt. Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles; in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea, quæ est ab Apostolis, Traditio.”

The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with—which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire. Again, they translate, maximæ, antiquissimæ, by greatest and most ancient, without reflecting that they thus attribute to St. Irenæus an assertion manifestly false; for, granting that the Church of Rome was the greatest of her day, she could not certainly be called the most ancient—every one knew that a great number of churches had been founded in the East before that of Rome. Moreover, their translation does not make the author say in conclusion, that the Apostolic tradition has been preserved at Rome, by those who were of all countries—(ab his qui sunt undique,) as the text requires, but like Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter to the Christians of the East, “In all that the faithful believe,” not reflecting that this is a misconstruction, and that they are thus attributing nonsense to the good Father.

Ahhh , Abbe Guettee, finally a reference. Now that I know your source, I looked him up. I have to say, up front, Guettee is obviously entitled to his own opinions. However, as we all know, one’s opinions aren’t immune from any criticism

Here’s one such critic. Actually Criticizing this same section from Guettee’s book that you use… Highlighted

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/guettees-mistranslation-of-irenaeus-affirmation-of-papal-supremacy/

I was also focusing on “potiorem principalitatem” I highlighted it in red

From: Phillip Schaff a Protestant scholar. He had real problems translating those words. In his own words

" *We are far from sure that the rendering given above (**potiorem principalitatem , pre-emenent authority) is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse;"

That said,

I’m sure you will understand if I say on this matter, I put my allegiance in how, now St JPII the Great, 264th successor to St Peter sees it. Here are his views on Irenaeus

ewtn.com/library/Theology/IRENAEUS.HTM

 

[steve_b]

Abbe Guettee continued…In the text as we render it all things hang together. St. Irenæus after having established that only the universal Faith should be received, points out to the heretics of that city the Church of Rome, as offering to them an evidence the more convincing that Apostolic tradition had been there preserved by the faithful of the whole world.

How then could St. Irenæus, whose purpose it is to give the universal Faith as the rule for private belief, and who enlarges precisely upon this point in the chapter from which the text is taken, logically say what is attributed to him by the Popes and their theologians? He would then have argued thus: It is necessaryto adopt as the rule the belief of all the churches; but it suffices to appeal to that of the Church of Rome, to which there must be uniformity and submission, because of her primacy. St. Irenæus never expressed so unreasonable an opinion. He lays down as a principle the universal Faith as a rule, and he points out the Faith of the Church of Rome as true—thanks to the concourse of the faithful who assembled there from all parts, and who thus preserved there the Apostolic tradition. How did they preserve it? Because they would have protested against any change in the traditions of their own churches, to which they were witnesses at Rome. St. Irenæus does not give the pretended Divine authority of the Bishop of Rome, as the principle of the preservation of tradition in the Church of that city—but logically, he attributes that preservation to the faithful of other Churches who controlled her traditions by those of their own Churches, and who thus formed an invincible obstacle to innovation.

It was natural that the Bishop of the Capital of the Empire, precisely because of the faithful who there gathered from all parts, should acquire a great influence in religious matters, and even occasionally take the lead. But all the monuments, as also the circumstances attending, those transactions in which he took part, show that he enjoyed no authority superior to that of the other Bishops.

It is clear that all discussion relative to this text of St. Irenæus turns upon the sense to be given to the word convenire. If this word signifies to agree with, we must conclude that the venerable writer thought it all must necessarily agree with the Church of Rome, and without that it is impossible to be in the unity. If the word means to go, all the Ultramontane scaffolding will fall of itself, for it can not reasonably be affirmed that all the faithful must of necessity go to Rome, even though the Church established in that city should be the first and principal Church, the centre of Unity. It follows that the sense of this word should be determined in so evident a manner that there remain no doubt in respect to it.

We have already remarked that the preposition ad determined the sense of it—we can add many others to this already conclusive proof.

If we possessed the Greek text of the passage in question, there is no doubt there would not be the uncertainty resulting from the Latin word. But Eusebius and Nicephorus have preserved for us other fragments of the primitive text. Now it happens that in these fragments the good Father uses expressions which the Latin translator has rendered by the word convenire, and which have no meaning, except just this one of going—whether together or separately.

In the second book, chapter xxii., (Migne’s edition, col. 785,) St, Irenæus says: “All the priests who have gone to Asia, to John, disciple of the Lord, bear witness to it.”

Greek Text: καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβληκότες.

Latin translation: “Omnes seniores testantur qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt.”

In the third book, 21st chapter, (Migne’s edition, col. 947,) speaking of the Septuagint interpreters of Scripture, St. Irenæus says of them, “Being assembled at Ptolemy’s house,” etc.

In Greek: “Συνελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τῷ Πτολεμαίῳ.”

The Latin translator renders this “Convenientibus autem ipsis in unum apud Ptolemæum.”

The Benedictine Massuet, editor of St. Irenæus’s works, pretends that St. Irenæus must have used in the text in question, the words συμβαίνειν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Ρωμαίων Ἐκκλησίαν. And he pretends that συμβαίνειν πρὸς τινα is the same thing as συμβαίνειν τινί.

Although this opinion were unimpeachable, such erudition would be worth nothing, for we must content ourselves with supposing that the good father has used the word συμβαίνειν. It would seem to us more natural and logical to look for the unknown word among the known words, which the translator renders convenire. Now from that study, it should appear that St. Irenæus did not use συμβαίνειν but συμβεβληκότες, which has the sense of a running together toward a place, or of συνελθότες, which has an analogous signification, since, in the Greek texts that have been preserved, he has used these words to express the idea for which the translator used convenire.

In general, the translator of St. Irenæus gives to the word convenire the sense of to go, and not to agree with. Why then give it this sense in the famous text in question, when in the text itself the preposition ad gives the idea of direction toward a place, and the adverb undique gives that of departure from all places other than Rome where the faithful were found?

[snip for space]

Gurttee’s argument (because Rome was the capital of the empire argument) was also answered in #289

 

[steve_b]

Look up the terms in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I’m not going to do your work for you. #274

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Steve b,

All I can say is that you’ve entirely switched your argument. You started out arguing that because the early church was often referred to as “the catholic church” it must be identical with what is commonly known now as “the Catholic Church”. I’m glad you abandoned that argument.

 

[steve_b]

Steve b,

All I can say is that you’ve entirely switched your argument. You started out arguing that because the early church was often referred to as “the catholic church” it must be identical with what is commonly known now as “the Catholic Church”. I’m glad you abandoned that argument.

I never said it was “identical”

I’ve argued it is the same Church.

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not going to do your work for you. #274

Neither am I, lazy. I gave you the source. Now you can go check it. Not everything is found at the tips of your keyboard. There are these things called books. And it gets even better. They’re made of paper. I’m sure your local library has access to it.

 

[steve_b]

Neither am I, lazy. I gave you the source. Now you can go check it.

I’m not doing your work for you.
R:

Not everything is found at the tips of your keyboard. There are these things called books. And it gets even better. They’re made of paper. I’m sure your local library has access to it.

IOW you don’t have the answer.

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not doing your work for you.

IOW you don’t have the answer.

Do you read? I gave you the source. It’s in the OED under the headwords “orthodox” and “catholic.” What are you asking me to do? Scan a copy of the dictionary and post it here on CAF? I’m so terribly sorry that not every source in the world is electronic, and that professional scholars use paper-based sources still.

The fact that you’re so hung up on particular proper nouns that didn’t even exist in the classical languages of Latin and Greek is mind boggling. Your fellow Catholics here even find your arguments to be based entirely out of ignorance. They are adjectives. And anyone with knowledge of a classic language knows how ridiculously ignorant your suggestion is. Let’s face it. prodromos, who obviously doesn’t just copypasta English translations like you do, showed you in both Greek and Latin why you’re wrong and explained so in detail. Upset that your ridiculous world view has been burst, you cry about sources. When I and others have provided you sources, you complained that I listed a source that requires that you get up out of your chair, take a break from being the apologetic keyboard warrior you are, and go to your local library to look up a grand total of two head words: “orthodox” and “catholic” which will then be explained with examples of their usage as proper nouns, which roughly dates to the seventeenth century.

I provided a paper-based source, when requested. You can now go verify my claims or falsify them. If that doesn’t satisfy you, then it only goes to show you’re only here to hear yourself talk.

 

[steve_b]

Do you read? I gave you the source. It’s in the OED under the headwords “orthodox” and “catholic.”

Yes I read.

This is what you said, and I was asking you for your source. #[274 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14188972&postcount=274)

Specifically, you said

• "The terms “Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and x-Protestant Church” didn’t come about as proper nouns until the Protestant Reformation."

AND

• This proper noun business is something of an English and modern fabrication that was done during the translation process to make it easier for the reader.
• Do you see why I’m asking you for your source for that?

You do realize that “noun” comes from the Latin word nōmen*, literally meaning “name”
R:

What are you asking me to do? Scan a copy of the dictionary and post it here on CAF? I’m so terribly sorry that not every source in the world is electronic, and that professional scholars use paper-based sources still.

The fact that you’re so hung up on particular proper nouns that didn’t even exist in the classical languages of Latin and Greek is mind boggling.

You said there were no proper names until the Protestant revolt.

Show me your source for that
R:

Your fellow Catholics here even find your arguments to be based entirely out of ignorance. They are adjectives. And anyone with knowledge of a classic language knows how ridiculously ignorant your suggestion is. Let’s face it. prodromos, who obviously doesn’t just copypasta English translations like you do, showed you in both Greek and Latin why you’re wrong and explained so in detail. Upset that your ridiculous world view has been burst, you cry about sources. When I and others have provided you sources, you complained that I listed a source that requires that you get up out of your chair, take a break from being the apologetic keyboard warrior you are, and go to your local library to look up a grand total of two head words: “orthodox” and “catholic” which will then be explained with examples of their usage as proper nouns, which roughly dates to the seventeenth century.

All your nastiness and insults aside, you didn’t answer my question. You didn’t give your source for your statements

• "The terms “Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and x-Protestant Church” didn’t come about as proper nouns until the Protestant Reformation."

AND

• This proper noun business is something of an English and modern fabrication that was done during the translation process to make it easier for the reader.

You didn’t answer that. *
*
R:

I provided a paper-based source, when requested.

No you didn’t
R:

You can now go verify my claims or falsify them. If that doesn’t satisfy you, then it only goes to show you’re only here to hear yourself talk.

You didn’t answer the question. All you did was hurl insults

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know when the exact words “The Orthodox Church” first appear. To engage in research on the question, I would first have to know why it is important. On the face of it, I don’t see that it is at all important.

I DO know that reference to “the Orthodox faith” goes back at least to St. Irenaeus. Since the Faith is always in the context of the Church, to reference “the Orthodox faith” is effectively a reference to “the Orthodox Church”.

You do realize, I hope, that the Orthodox Church considers itself “the catholic church” as that term was used in the early and patristic Church. And with good reason. It even often officially refers to itself as the Orthodox Catholic Church".

Hi Expatreprocedit. There are a lot of Catholic-posts that I haven’t read, so I apologize if I’m taking things out of context. But my experience with Orthodox is that they generally don’t call themselves Catholic because they don’t want to lead people into thinking they mean RC.

This is getting too silly.

Thank you. I was feeling temptation to go back and read some of the posts that I skipped, but you just strengthened my resolve.