Christian Forums

Here's how I understand it:

It seems to me that everyone who believes Jesus built his church, and that it is constitutionally and essentially one, is a catholic.  The word, iiuc, simply means "universal".

I believe Jesus built one church.  I guess that makes me "catholic".

"Roman Catholic" refers to a Christian church having a hierarchy of priests and bishops under the pope, a liturgy centered in the Mass, veneration of the Virgin Mary and saints, clerical celibacy, and a body of dogma including transubstantiation and papal infallibility.

Most all of this I don't buy and/or understand.  I guess that means I'm not "Roman Catholic".

As I have said before, Jesus didn't start a denomination. He started a church of believers who were eventually called Christians since they identified themselves with Christ. Where it all went wrong and everyone started separating into denomination is a good question. I believe that "denominations" are the work of satan. He can't get our souls and wants to destroy our fellowship with one another by causing strife and disagreements among the believers. If satan can turn us against one another, he can make us ineffective for Christ. He's done a very good job of that.

It sounds to me that you are catholic, too.

Strife and disagreement aren't very fun, but those alone shouldn't break the bonds of fellowship.  I have two brothers and sometimes there is disagreement.  Every few years, a tad of strife.  Never once have I thought or treated them as though my father wasn't theirs anymore.

It started early very early on:

1 Corinthians 1:2-3 (NIV)
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And just a few lines later

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 (NIV)
10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

It should have stopped then with these simple words, but it didn't.  Call me Catholic, call me Christian, call me stupid, but at the end of the day don't call on me because I can't save you from your sins!

As others have stated, the term 'catholic' refers to the universal church.

Roman Catholic refers to the religion started by Emperor Constantine (with a lot of help from his mother) when he adopted christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.  During his codification of Christinity, he had to adopt a lot of pagan customs of the time and integrate them into his version of Christianity in order to cement his power base... in essence, a lot of the old pagan temples pretty much had their old names just chiseled off and christian names carved in their place.

Constantine's influence has been so far ranging that it actually still has a lot of its influence evidenced in todays protestantism.

So whether you are pro or anti Catholic, we still have to deal with the legacy of what was done...

Some of the things that I view Constantine as being responsible for.

1.) Creation of a class of clergy.

2.) Obcession with building edifices which is a continuation of pagan traditions (parthanon, pantheon, etc.).

3.) Support of christians being involved in the military instead of being passifistic in nature as were the early christians.

4.) Obsession with ritual forms and practices.  RC is steeped in them with protestants having lesser forms of them, but they are still there.  Whether it be the lords supper (eucharist), baptism, baby dedications, marriage, etc.  For some reason humankind seems to like to fight over and be comfortable with ritual.  Which in my opinion have their roots in paganism.

So whether we like it or not, we all suffer from the same slanted world view in one way or the other.

If Catholics aren't Roman, then why is the Pope called the Roman Pontiff on vatican.va?

QuoteTHE HOLY FATHER
The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.
LUMEN GENTIUM, 23

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm

Why is the Curia (or the catholic goverining body) called the Roman Curia on vatican.va?

QuoteTHE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm

Seems to me the entire Catholic Church is Roman according to the Vatican.

As you will recall, I've mentioned before that the word "Roman" is used in my locale all the time by the Catholic church itself.  Many churches include "Roman" on their signs, etc.  The diocese uses the word "Roman" in their title ("The Roman Catholic Diocese of xxxxx", for example).  When I've mentioned this to the Catholic posters on the board, they responded that yes, indeed, this is the case, but that words like "Romanist" are never used (and I've found no evidence to the contrary), and are offensive. 

The offensiveness or lack thereof is determined, as has been pointed out at nauseatingly exhaustive length by context, intent, and the usage of "-ist", among other things.

I don't believe the use of the word Romanist was the topic of discussion here.

If you are nauseated by the discussion of the term, you would do well to not bring it up.

When I think about all this, it quite honestly depresses me.  It's the tragedy of Christian church history.

I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church has strayed off path on some things.  And, some of the teachings do make me uncomfortable (veneration of Mary/saints, central papal authority/infallability, etc.).

And, so at different times in history, people come along with their fresh and what they believe to be their more true interpretation of Christianity.  So, they split off and do their own thing.  Then, a little while later, their spiritual descendents believe that they don't have it all together, so they split off and split off and split off.

Then, some rogue sectarians emerge and declare the whole of Christiandom in error because it allegedly doesn't have the "true," "pure," "historical" Gospel (whatever your code word of choice is) that they have discovered.

Anyway, it all seems so sad and hopeless at times.  We can only hope and pray that God is working through it in spite of ourselves.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 09:58:14
If you are nauseated by the discussion of the term, you would do well to not bring it up.

As if I brought it up.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 10:39:05

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 09:58:14
If you are nauseated by the discussion of the term, you would do well to not bring it up.

As if I brought it up.

This thread is called "Catholic and Roman Catholic ", so my post has to do with the so-called "universal" church infact falling under the Roman Pontiff, and Roman Curia therefore making all Catholics Roman by definition. I have not used the term Romanist in my posts here, neither did anyone else but you.

So I don't know what your problem is, but if you have a problem with the Roman Church being Roman this is not an issue that I can solve for you. But if you don't want to see the word Romanist being used, I again suggest you don't bring it up in the discussion as you did here:

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 07:42:32When I've mentioned this to the Catholic posters on the board, they responded that yes, indeed, this is the case, but that words like "Romanist" are never used (and I've found no evidence to the contrary), and are offensive.

Although if you would like to continue discussing the topic, I would be willing to further explore the subject. But you would need to unlock the thread since I believe that one was locked due to people calling me names.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 10:56:40
Although if you would like to continue discussing the topic, I would be willing to further explore the subject. But you would need to unlock the thread since I believe that one was locked due to people calling me names.

It was also locked and moved because of behavior of folks on the non-Catholic side, if you catch my drift.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 10:56:40
This thread is called "Catholic and Roman Catholic ", so my post has to do with the so-called "universal" church infact falling under the Roman Pontiff, and Roman Curia therefore making all Catholics Roman by definition.

It is "so-called" because Jesus said he would build HIS church.  Do you believe Jesus built one or a bunch?  If you believe he built one, you're catholic.  You're not Roman Catholic unless you go for the things DCR mentioned.  That's the difference, istm.

QuoteIt is "so-called" because Jesus said he would build HIS church.  Do you believe Jesus built one or a bunch?  If you believe he built one, you're catholic.  You're not Roman Catholic unless you go for the things DCR mentioned.  That's the difference, istm.

Exactly how many churches do you believe that Jesus built? 

Quote from: Mere Nick on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 11:17:54

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 10:56:40
This thread is called "Catholic and Roman Catholic ", so my post has to do with the so-called "universal" church infact falling under the Roman Pontiff, and Roman Curia therefore making all Catholics Roman by definition.

It is "so-called" because Jesus said he would build HIS church.  Do you believe Jesus built one or a bunch?  If you believe he built one, you're catholic.  You're not Roman Catholic unless you go for the things DCR mentioned.  That's the difference, istm.

The Catholic Church that exists today, and the Universal Church that you are describing are two very different things. Believing theres one church doesn't make me Catholic, belief in Jesus makes me a Christian. That is the only becoming that is accomplished through belief.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 11:37:37

Quote from: Mere Nick on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 11:17:54

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 10:56:40
This thread is called "Catholic and Roman Catholic ", so my post has to do with the so-called "universal" church infact falling under the Roman Pontiff, and Roman Curia therefore making all Catholics Roman by definition.

It is "so-called" because Jesus said he would build HIS church.  Do you believe Jesus built one or a bunch?  If you believe he built one, you're catholic.  You're not Roman Catholic unless you go for the things DCR mentioned.  That's the difference, istm.

The Catholic Church that exists today, and the Universal Church that you are describing are two very different things. Believing theres one church doesn't make me Catholic, belief in Jesus makes me a Christian. That is the only becoming that is accomplished through belief.

The catholic church and the universal church are one and the same.  Believing there's one church does make you a catholic.  Going for those things that DCR mentioned would make you a Roman Catholic.

I can be a Baptist Catholic?

All the Baptists just started calling me names.



FTL

As I read some of the previous posts, I can only shake my head in disbelief.  It is obvious that there is little understanding of the history of the faith.  Some of you are right in some respects but dead wrong on others.  I would like to address a few.  I am not interested in getting into a debate about these things.  I am only offering the Catholic POV:

1. The Church itself is not "Roman" per se.  The word "Roman" is an adjective that more than likely reflects on the nature of the Holy See and the "western" nature of the Church. Ironically, the word "Roman" was never used in conjunction with Catholic until the Reformation.  I have no problems with being called a Roman Catholic because it reflects the Latin rite which I am a part of, but the word "Catholic" is what I am.  The Pope also has another title--the Bishop of Rome.  He is one of many bishops in the world.  However, because he is the Bishop of Rome, which is the seat of Peter (the first Bishop of Rome) the Bishop of Rome is recognized also as the Pope, the leader of the church.  This is a simplified explanation but this can do for now.  One would certainly have to research the nature of the Papacy for better understanding.

Like I said...I do not live in Rome...the Pope is German...and the Vatican is not located in Rome.  I am not a Romanist...I am proudly a Catholic.

2. There is one Catholic Church.  It is the church that Jesus built.  There was a time when everyone in the world was a Catholic.  To be a Christian was to be Catholic.  The Catholic church is "one, holy, and apostolic."I doubt that Jesus intended on their being mulitple denominations and sectarian divisions.  Unfortunately, as history progressed, the Orthodox church broke away and then the Reformation occurred...and as they say, the rest is history.

3. There are essentially two types of Catholics...those of the Latin rite and those of the Eastern rite.  There are some minor differences in terms of liturgy but what makes all of us Catholics is that these bishops and churches are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

4. The Catholic Church as stood for 2000 years.  Its teaching and doctrines have been consistent and reflects the teachings and doctrines of the early church and Christians.  Please spare me the "Constantine" theory of how the Church started.  Anyone who knows anything about the Council of Nicea or Constantine would know that you giving way to much credit where it is not deserved.

5. Has the Catholic Church made mistakes during its long history?  Absolutely, it was never meant to be perfect and it has been headed by men that were certainly not perfect.  Regardless, the teachings and doctrines have never changed.  Despite what many would think here, the Pope can't just wake up and make major changes to doctrine.  One must judge history by our set of values or judgements.  I think there are many stones that could go in a variety of directions here.

I have been a Protestant for much of my life.  I was raised baptist and my mother was Church of God.  I am now a Catholic.  A journey that took me 10 years.  I struggled over many things.  It was not a decision that was made overnight.  I consider myself to be a devout believer and fairly intelligent person.  I would have never made this decision if I thought it was contrary to God's will.  I do think Catholicism is reviled because people fear what they do not or cannot understand.  Some of it is still a little over my head but I keep studying and researching.  I ask that you please do the same.

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 13:39:04
How about the Orthodox, they believe in one Church. I doubt they would agree with being called Catholic either.

Actually, they don't.  There are many Orthodox branches...Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukranian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox...and I met someone who was a Carpathian Orthodox.

Each has their own leader or patriarch....so to say that they are in essence one Church would not be correct.

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Feb 01, 2008 - 11:28:46
As others have stated, the term 'catholic' refers to the universal church.

Roman Catholic refers to the religion started by Emperor Constantine (with a lot of help from his mother) when he adopted christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.  During his codification of Christinity, he had to adopt a lot of pagan customs of the time and integrate them into his version of Christianity in order to cement his power base... in essence, a lot of the old pagan temples pretty much had their old names just chiseled off and christian names carved in their place.

Constantine's influence has been so far ranging that it actually still has a lot of its influence evidenced in todays protestantism.

So whether you are pro or anti Catholic, we still have to deal with the legacy of what was done...

Some of the things that I view Constantine as being responsible for.

1.) Creation of a class of clergy.

2.) Obcession with building edifices which is a continuation of pagan traditions (parthanon, pantheon, etc.).

3.) Support of christians being involved in the military instead of being passifistic in nature as were the early christians.

4.) Obsession with ritual forms and practices.  RC is steeped in them with protestants having lesser forms of them, but they are still there.  Whether it be the lords supper (eucharist), baptism, baby dedications, marriage, etc.  For some reason humankind seems to like to fight over and be comfortable with ritual.  Which in my opinion have their roots in paganism.

So whether we like it or not, we all suffer from the same slanted world view in one way or the other.

3.) Support of christians being involved in the military instead of being passifistic in nature as were the early christians.

This is the part I wanted to ask about. If the Bible does not support Christians engaging in war, why do Christians support it? Is there any where I can read more about this online that anyone knows of?

dayspring08

Quote from: broach972 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 13:59:52
As I read some of the previous posts, I can only shake my head in disbelief.  It is obvious that there is little understanding of the history of the faith.  Some of you are right in some respects but dead wrong on others.  I would like to address a few.  I am not interested in getting into a debate about these things.  I am only offering the Catholic POV:

1. The Church itself is not "Roman" per se.  The word "Roman" is an adjective that more than likely reflects on the nature of the Holy See and the "western" nature of the Church. Ironically, the word "Roman" was never used in conjunction with Catholic until the Reformation.  I have no problems with being called a Roman Catholic because it reflects the Latin rite which I am a part of, but the word "Catholic" is what I am.  The Pope also has another title--the Bishop of Rome.  He is one of many bishops in the world.  However, because he is the Bishop of Rome, which is the seat of Peter (the first Bishop of Rome) the Bishop of Rome is recognized also as the Pope, the leader of the church.  This is a simplified explanation but this can do for now.  One would certainly have to research the nature of the Papacy for better understanding.

Like I said...I do not live in Rome...the Pope is German...and the Vatican is not located in Rome.  I am not a Romanist...I am proudly a Catholic.

2. There is one Catholic Church.  It is the church that Jesus built.  There was a time when everyone in the world was a Catholic.  To be a Christian was to be Catholic.  The Catholic church is "one, holy, and apostolic."I doubt that Jesus intended on their being mulitple denominations and sectarian divisions.  Unfortunately, as history progressed, the Orthodox church broke away and then the Reformation occurred...and as they say, the rest is history.

3. There are essentially two types of Catholics...those of the Latin rite and those of the Eastern rite.  There are some minor differences in terms of liturgy but what makes all of us Catholics is that these bishops and churches are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

4. The Catholic Church as stood for 2000 years.  Its teaching and doctrines have been consistent and reflects the teachings and doctrines of the early church and Christians.  Please spare me the "Constantine" theory of how the Church started.  Anyone who knows anything about the Council of Nicea or Constantine would know that you giving way to much credit where it is not deserved.

5. Has the Catholic Church made mistakes during its long history?  Absolutely, it was never meant to be perfect and it has been headed by men that were certainly not perfect.  Regardless, the teachings and doctrines have never changed.  Despite what many would think here, the Pope can't just wake up and make major changes to doctrine.  One must judge history by our set of values or judgements.  I think there are many stones that could go in a variety of directions here.

I have been a Protestant for much of my life.  I was raised baptist and my mother was Church of God.  I am now a Catholic.  A journey that took me 10 years.  I struggled over many things.  It was not a decision that was made overnight.  I consider myself to be a devout believer and fairly intelligent person.  I would have never made this decision if I thought it was contrary to God's will.  I do think Catholicism is reviled because people fear what they do not or cannot understand.  Some of it is still a little over my head but I keep studying and researching.  I ask that you please do the same.

The church that Jesus started was based in Jerusalem and Jewish in nature.. the disciples were Jewish and so were almost all the converts during his lifetime.

It was after his death that Paul was converted and became the missionary to the Gentiles.

You also seem to forget your history lesson of the power struggle that happened between the different bishops ending in the bishop of rome trying to strong arm all the others into becoming the first among equals.

If anything its the eastern orthodox sects that have a more clearer claim on being Jesus' church then the one in Rome... and they sure have done less damage to Jesus' name over history instead of the blood thirsty succession of popes in Rome.

The eastern orthodox churches did not break away from Rome.. it was the other way around.


Give credit where credit is due and remove the brain washing from your mind.

Quote from: Tantor on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 19:27:41
The eastern orthodox churches did not break away from Rome.. it was the other way around.

Give credit where credit is due and remove the brain washing from your mind.

As a teacher of History, I can assure that there is no brain washing here.  You must have struggled as a history student in school.  Let me correct you where you are wrong.

The papacy did develop over time, but it was well established that the Bishop of Rome was the de facto leader of the Church.  The Catholic Church did begin in Jerusalem but Jerusalem ceased being a major center after 70 A.D. after the Romans leveled it.  As the Church Fathers stated long before the Schism of 1054 when the Orthodox Church broke away from the Catholic Church, the bishops recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter and his Apostolic See...It only made sense since Rome was by far the center of the world at that time.

Primacy of Peter's Apostolic See

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle...In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

Quote from: Tantor on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 19:27:41
You also seem to forget your history lesson of the power struggle that happened between the different bishops ending in the bishop of rome trying to strong arm all the others into becoming the first among equals.

I would like to explore this quote a little bit more in depth.  This simply is not true.  I cite the following evidence...Please keep in mind that the schism that resulted in the breaking away of the Orthodox Church did not take place until 1054.

Below are writings of the early Church Fathers of the Eastern part of the Catholic Church -- all of whom supported the primacy of Peter and his successors.


Jerusalem

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363)

Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' ...And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' not simply that, but 'the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)

For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven. (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures A.D. 350).

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, also the foremost of the Apostles and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ. (Cyril, Catech. xviii. n. 27)

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy. (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893)

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645)

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.

Constantinople

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387)

Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom).

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ ...he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock ...he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.)

He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ' 'Simon, Simon,' etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And that what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying: 'Simon, Simon, etc.' (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):
A disciple of St. John Chrysostom

Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles. Art not thou he that didst say, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'? Thou Bar-Jonas (son of the dove) hast thou seen so many miracles, and art thou still but Simon (a hearer)? He appointed thee the key-bearer of Heaven, and has though not yet layed aside thy fisherman's clothing? (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)
John Cassian, Monk (c. 430)

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St. Nilus of Constantinople (448)
A disciple of St. John Chrysostom

Peter, Head of the choir of Apostles. (Nilus, Lib. ii Epistl.)

Peter, who was foremost in the choir of Apostles and always ruled amongst them. (Nilus, Tract. ad. Magnam.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope:
Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal:
Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael:
Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Alexandria

St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311)

Head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he became bishop around A.D. 300, reigning for about eleven years, and dying a martyr's death.

Peter, set above the Apostles. (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)
St. Anthony of Egypt (330)

Peter, the Prince of the Apostles (Anthony, Epist. xvii. Galland, iv p. 687)
St. Athanasius (362)

Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35)

The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
St. Macarius of Egypt (371)

The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)

Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424)

He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)

He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

Therefore, when the Lord had hinted at the disciple's denial in the words that He used, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail,' He at once introduced a word of consolation, and said (to Peter): 'And do thou, when once thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' That is, 'Be thou a support and a teacher of those who through faith come to me.' Again, marvel also at the insight of that saying and at the completeness of the Divine gentleness of spirit. For so that He should not reduce the disciple to despair at the thought that after his denial he would have to be debarred from the glorious distinction of being an Apostle, He fills him with good hope, that he will attain the good things promised. ...O loving kindness! The sin was not yet committed, and He already extends His pardon and sets him (Peter) again in his Apostolic office. (Cyril Comm. on Luke's Gospel)

They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter. (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).

And even blessed Peter, though set over the holy disciples, says 'Lord, be it far from Thee, this shall be done to Thee. (Cyril, Ibid. 924).

If Peter himself, that prince of the holy disciples, was, upon an occassion, scandalized, so as suddenly to exclaim, 'Lord, be it far from Thee,' what wonder that the tender mind of woman should be carried away? (Cyril, Ibid, p. 1064)

Besides all these, let there come forward that leader of the holy disciples, Peter, who, when the Lord, on a certain occassion, asked him, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' instantly cried out, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, T. v. P.2, Hom. viii. De Fest. Pasch. p. 105)

This bold man (Julian), besides all this, cavils at Peter, the chosen one of the holy Apostles. (Cyril, T. vi.l. ix. Contr. Julian. p. 325).

Quote from: Tantor on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 19:27:41
If anything its the eastern orthodox sects that have a more clearer claim on being Jesus' church then the one in Rome... and they sure have done less damage to Jesus' name over history instead of the blood thirsty succession of popes in Rome

Tantor, are you sure about this one?  You might want to read up on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church...not to mention the Byzantine Empire in general.  I doubt you will make this claim after doing some research.

Quote from: broach972 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 16:41:21

Quote from: Tantor on Sat Feb 02, 2008 - 19:27:41
If anything its the eastern orthodox sects that have a more clearer claim on being Jesus' church then the one in Rome... and they sure have done less damage to Jesus' name over history instead of the blood thirsty succession of popes in Rome

Tantor, are you sure about this one?  You might want to read up on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church...not to mention the Byzantine Empire in general.  I doubt you will make this claim after doing some research.

Both the Orthodox and the Latin Rite Church removed themselves from the Coptic Church.

None of those dates are earlier than 300.  I always find that telling.  A lot can happen in a couple hundred years. 

All broach972 did was prove he has good cut and paste skills.

And catholics have nothing else to hold onto then rewriting history in their favor so that their 'don' in the vatican can continue his illegitibate reign.

Quote from: Tantor on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 20:50:43
All broach972 did was prove he has good cut and paste skills.

And catholics have nothing else to hold onto then rewriting history in their favor so that their 'don' in the vatican can continue his illegitibate reign.

This is all you have?  Okay.  Well, been nice talking to you.  Look forward to seeing your posts in the future.

God bless.

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 17:01:23
None of those dates are earlier than 300.  I always find that telling.  A lot can happen in a couple hundred years. 

Why should you find that telling?  There are sources much earlier than this.  Maybe you should take a look at my signature.  The only logical explanation is that there was in fact only one Church.  I doubt that Jesus intended on the development of varous denominations and an authority was necessary to make sure the faith did not go into a variety of directions (i.e. Gnosticism).  Besides, one cannot deny the fact that the doctrines and teachings of the Church were being developed within the first centuries of the faith.

Quote from: broach972 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 22:55:55

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 17:01:23
None of those dates are earlier than 300.  I always find that telling.  A lot can happen in a couple hundred years. 

Why should you find that telling?  There are sources much earlier than this.  Maybe you should take a look at my signature.  The only logical explanation is that there was in fact only one Church.  I doubt that Jesus intended on the development of varous denominations and an authority was necessary to make sure the faith did not go into a variety of directions (i.e. Gnosticism).  Besides, one cannot deny the fact that the doctrines and teachings of the Church were being developed within the first centuries of the faith.

A lot can happen with the sanctioning of the church by Constantine.  Pagan priests becoming Christian priests and what not.

Quote from: Gary on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 23:17:23

Quote from: broach972 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 22:55:55

Quote from: jmg3rd on Sun Feb 03, 2008 - 17:01:23
None of those dates are earlier than 300.  I always find that telling.  A lot can happen in a couple hundred years. 

Why should you find that telling?  There are sources much earlier than this.  Maybe you should take a look at my signature.  The only logical explanation is that there was in fact only one Church.  I doubt that Jesus intended on the development of varous denominations and an authority was necessary to make sure the faith did not go into a variety of directions (i.e. Gnosticism).  Besides, one cannot deny the fact that the doctrines and teachings of the Church were being developed within the first centuries of the faith.

A lot can happen with the sanctioning of the church by Constantine.  Pagan priests becoming Christian priests and what not.

But the Constantine theory of the origins of the Church just don't hold water in light of history.  Constantine was never interested in theological matters.  He became involved in religious matters when it threatened the unity of the Empire, which brings up another point.  Remember, he moved the capital to Constantinople, which gave some prominence to the church in the city.  Rome was pretty much left to the wolves.  It wasn't the Pope that constantly found himself embroiled in the political intrigues of the Byzantine Empire or the influence of Constantine and subsequent Byzantine emperors...it was the Patriarch of Constantinople, the eventual leader of the Orthodox Church.

We know that a Church structure and heirarchy existed prior to Constantine.  The big difference is that it was pretty much underground in light of the persecutions that had occured in the Empire.  As a matter of fact, many of the bishops that attended the Council of Nicea had been victims of that persecution.  I doubt that they were in a mood to do him any favors.  One must also consider the Constantine supported or sympathized with the Arians, which ended up being the loser in the debate concerning the nature of the Trinity.

Maybe, but you are totally writing off Constantine's mother who was obcessed with Christianity.  But we do know that Constantine had non-christian motives when he dealt with the church and reports are that he didnt even get baptised till the end of his life.

But we do know he integrated a lot of pagan stuff into Christianity for his own political reasons and they have stuck through the centuries.


Besides.. the bible states that you will know christians by their actions.. and a brief analysis of Catholic history totaly disqualifies them from even being christian to begin with.

So defend them all you want.. but actions speak a lot louder then your posts on this board...

If Catholicism is christianity, then I would rather to to hell.

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Feb 04, 2008 - 09:24:31
Besides.. the bible states that you will know Christians by their actions.. and a brief analysis of Catholic history totaly disqualifies them from even being christian to begin with.

This is a false logic and quite a sweeping judgement of the 1 billion Catholics that make up the Church today.  While many individuals may have exercised poor judgement and committed a variety of immoral acts in the past, what does that have to do with me or the Church in general.  People are not perfect.  The doctrines and teachings of the Church never changed despite the actions of certain individuals.  Again, you are committing the cardinal sin of studying history...you are judging history through your own eyes using your own set of values that we hold dear in the present time.  You simply cannot do this.

Besides, does this apply to Protestant denominations as well and the atrocities committed by them throughout their history?  How about the constant support of slavery in the South by Southern Baptist (ever wonder why this denomination was created?)?  Again, this is a path you really don't want to go down.

It has been nice talking to you.  I look forward to seeing your posts in the future.

God bless.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 - 09:33:30

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Feb 04, 2008 - 09:24:31
Besides.. the bible states that you will know Christians by their actions.. and a brief analysis of Catholic history totaly disqualifies them from even being christian to begin with.

This is a false logic and quite a sweeping judgement of the 1 billion Catholics that make up the Church today.  While many individuals may have exercised poor judgement and committed a variety of immoral acts in the past, what does that have to do with me or the Church in general.  People are not perfect.  The doctrines and teachings of the Church never changed despite the actions of certain individuals.  Again, you are committing the cardinal sin of studying history...you are judging history through your own eyes using your own set of values that we hold dear in the present time.  You simply cannot do this.

Besides, does this apply to Protestant denominations as well and the atrocities committed by them throughout their history?  How about the constant support of slavery in the South by Southern Baptist (ever wonder why this denomination was created?)?  Again, this is a path you really don't want to go down.

It has been nice talking to you.  I look forward to seeing your posts in the future.

God bless.

You just dont get it.. its the very core leadership of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries that have proven that they are not a christian church in any way shape or form.

And as far as the other denominations, they have never claimed (like the RC church) to be 'the' church... because they have the wisdom to understand what a dangerous road that is to take.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Christ returns and refuses to acknowledge the Roman Catholic's at all.. cause we all know its coming.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 - 09:33:30

Quote from: Tantor on Mon Feb 04, 2008 - 09:24:31
Besides.. the bible states that you will know Christians by their actions.. and a brief analysis of Catholic history totaly disqualifies them from even being christian to begin with.

This is a false logic and quite a sweeping judgement of the 1 billion Catholics that make up the Church today.  While many individuals may have exercised poor judgement and committed a variety of immoral acts in the past, what does that have to do with me or the Church in general.  People are not perfect.  The doctrines and teachings of the Church never changed despite the actions of certain individuals.  Again, you are committing the cardinal sin of studying history...you are judging history through your own eyes using your own set of values that we hold dear in the present time.  You simply cannot do this.

Besides, does this apply to Protestant denominations as well and the atrocities committed by them throughout their history?  How about the constant support of slavery in the South by Southern Baptist (ever wonder why this denomination was created?)?  Again, this is a path you really don't want to go down.

It has been nice talking to you.  I look forward to seeing your posts in the future.

God bless.

I have read parts of this thread but I have to admit that I haven't read them all. Forgive me if these questions have already been addressed.

Does the Pope really believe he is replacing Peter?  Do Catholics have a book with over 900 pages of rules ( not contained in the Bible) decided on by the Pope?
Do they believe in confession of a sin to a Priest?  Who can forgive them of their sin.
Do they believe in praying to Mary?

Thank you,
dayspring08