Christian Forums

QuoteActs 15:6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

This is a piece from the Council in Jerusalem in which circumcision was the main topic of controversy. The crowd was in great confusion and turmoil over whether or not gentiles were required to become circumcised. Notice how although Peter presided over the Council they met collectively and then Peter rendered the decision the apostolic authorities reached as a collective.

As the story continues Paul and Barnabas share their testimonies for the congregation which isn't really relevant. I just didn't want you guys to think that I was just picking random pieces out of context which I know is what is commonly done by amateur debaters.

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 20:26:01
 

Inside the Catholic Church there is not confusion?

Correct.

Catholic doctrine is unified.

Want to know it?  It is here:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PROLOGUE

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/prologue.htm

Quote from: chestertonrules on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 22:30:03

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 20:26:01
 

Inside the Catholic Church there is not confusion?

Correct.

Catholic doctrine is unified.

Want to know it?  It is here:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PROLOGUE

"FATHER, . . . this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."1 "God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."2 "There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved"3 - than the name of JESUS.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/prologue.htm

Yea you're official position is concrete I don't deny that I'm just saying that the practices inside the Catholic organization are questionable to say the least. You are far from perfect.

However, every separate denomination has a concrete official position. You see you view Christianity as catholicism and protestantism. I imagine the thought to be something like,"When it comes to the faith there is us, the unified Church of God and there's the rest of them."

Each denomination is unified under separate official positions that are set in stone. There is no confusion within the ranks of each individual denomination.

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 22:37:05

Yea you're official position is concrete I don't deny that I'm just saying that the practices inside the Catholic organization are questionable to say the least.

People are sinners.  This includes the Pope and all other Catholics.

That's irrelevant.

The point is that Jesus gave us a Church and promised that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all Truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

There is only unity in Christian Truth in the Catholic Church.

Ah the Catechism. So somebody finally uses it.

Im sorry the Catechism and I go way back to when I used to be Catholic. Hmm. My family loved the Church and I used to study up on the collection of the official doctrines of the Old Girl. Anyway back to the topic at hand.

Quote
There is only unity in Christian Truth in the Catholic Church.

Statements like this are dangerous because they are so true in yet so (how do I say this without being offensive)....vague. This is an opinion. But Im going to need you to validate that with facts.


Like I said before; your Catholic version of Christianity was formed with the authority less than what it needed to be valid or of Christ. 1800 successors to a collective authority and 318 acted in Rome. Thats not valid. 

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 22:52:26

Statements like this are dangerous because they are so true in yet so (how do I say this without being offensive)....vague. This is an opinion. But Im going to need you to validate that with facts.

Please show me Christian unity in matters of faith and morals outside of the Catholic Church if you can.

Gay marriage, abortion, birth control, infant baptism, OSAS, sola scriptura, sola fide, gifts of the spirit, etc.

Where is there Christian unity on these issues?  Only one place.

Quote....Catholic version of Christianity was formed with the authority less than what it needed to be valid or of Christ. 1800 successors to a collective authority and 318 acted in Rome. Thats not valid.  

I'm offering this not to fuel the lack of brotherly love but just to help you understand the catholic perspective better.  I think what I've written below is representative of Coptics, Romans and Orthodox.

There are ecumenical councils and local councils.  There were local councils before the council of Nicaea.  There are also Bishops who have jurisdictions and then inside those jurisdictions there are other bishops.  Like, "Bishop of Antioch" didn't mean that in all of Antioch there was only one bishop.  

The other thing about the council is that it's not like you're thinking.  They had a very specific list of things to be discussed and most (involved) interested parties showed up.  Like, Arius kind of sort of had to show up.  And anyone involved in the Easter stuff etc.  That and the council was going to be local in the beginning it seems but depending on the outcome it can always become ecumenical (they were going to meet at Galatia).  Just depends on whether or not it's accepted by the churches in communion.  If you aren't in communion then the councils don't really matter.  The groups not in communion back then were folks like, gnostics etc. for obvious reasons.  

But if you're in communion with, say, Antioch, and they send representative Bishops and they in concert with others you're in communion arrive at consensus and you later find out what they decided on, you can play catch up and remain in communion/agree or begin an appeal process or start pointing out the errors, if you believe that's the case.  

But across all jurisdictions and even among Coptics, Roman and Orthodox I'm pretty sure that we all held and hold Nicea to be Ecumenical.  


But also you have to realize that it's not like things are always set in stone in the way you think.  I mean, Arius shows up and things get affirmed in subsequent councils.   He's anathematized but like Arnold Governator, "he'll be back".

Plus, all jurisdictions if there was a protest against the creed etc. it would have been addressed later in a subsequent council either local or across jurisdictions.  

Not sure what you mean by, "the Catholic version of Christianity was formed" at Nicaea because the very creed was an effort to put forth a statement of faith as to what they all believed...  all of them.  And they were, prior to showing up in Nicaea, "catholic".  

St. Ignatius talks about how the Christian churches that are tied to the Apostles are the ones that are called, "catholic" which means, "according to the whole".  

St. Ignatius didn't coin the term and since St. John probably didn't die until about 100 AD...

It's safe to say that the Christians that were tied to the Apostles directly started to call themselves "catholic" at least by the turn of the century.

Ignatius of Antioch, also known as Theophorus from Greek, ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117, was among the Apostolic Fathers, was the ~third Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch, and was a student of John the Apostle.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. -- St. Ignatius

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 20:42:36

QuoteActs 15:6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

This is a piece from the Council in Jerusalem in which circumcision was the main topic of controversy. The crowd was in great confusion and turmoil over whether or not gentiles were required to become circumcised. Notice how although Peter presided over the Council they met collectively and then Peter rendered the decision the apostolic authorities reached as a collective.

But Peter gave his assent, and yes, it was a councillor agreement, but there has never been any requirement for all, or a majority, or any set number to attend.  Did the Council of Nicaea have a minority of Church fathers in attendance?  Yes, so did every single other ecumenical council in history.  An ecumenical council is the Church coming together, as many as can reasonably attend is great, but not required, in order to express those truths of the faith that are contained within the Deposit of Faith, i.e., Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  

This was written by a Protestant historian of Christianity in the late 1800's and he sums it up rather well...

The history of the Council of Nicaea has been so often written by so many brilliant historians, from the time of its sitting down to today, that any historical notice of the causes leading to its assembling, or account of its proceedings, seems quite unnecessary.  The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received.  

They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes.  They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect -- to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God.  The first requirement was not learning, but honesty.  The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others?

When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of the assembled fathers from Holy Scripture, but whether it was the traditional faith of the Church.  It was not the doctrine of Leo in the fifth century, but the doctrine of Peter in the first, and of the Church since then, that they desired to believe and to teach, and so, when they had studied the Tome, they cried out:

"This is the faith of the Fathers!  This is the faith of the Apostles! ... Peter hath thus spoken by Leo!  The Apostles thus taught! Cyril thus taught! ..."

Extract from the introduction to The Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Editor Henry R. Percival, M.A., D.D.

Oh, and LightHammer, honestly, that the Catholic Church was not started until the time of Constantine would get you a failing grade in History of Western Civ. 101.   It requires one to ignore the ample records of the previous 32 Popes before Nicaea and the doctrinal issues the Church faced in the first 300+ years of her history.   I'm not saying that as a slap, but the Church, with her sacraments and magisterium, with her bishops, including the chief bishop of Rome, all her priests and deacons, was fully formed and in existence well before Constantine was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.  

They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes.  They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect -- to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God.  The first requirement was not learning, but honesty.  The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others?

Witnesses to what? True, "exegesis" has always been an opinion to the Roman church. "The faith once delivered" (Jude3) is a dead letter to Rome...just make it up as you go, have a pope bless it and "bingo" it is truth. Recall the good old days of the Latin mass and no meat on Friday and of course, no pedophile priests molesting the alter boys? Now, that's real Catholicism with a twist of Holy Spirit regeneration.....lol

You write: "That makes no sense.  The Holy Spirit's role is to guide the Church, which is the body of Christ."
This is exactly why you hold written Scripture as "dead." "Exegesis" of John 16:7-14 tells man the "role" of the Holy Spirit.
John 16:8 is not miraculous regeneration of the will.  Catholicism, as Protestantism has never sorted out who are Apostles (eye witnesess) and who are not.
Augustine, Calvin, and Joseph Smith (with their transcendental experiences) were NOT!

If you are hell bound to "trust doctrine handed down to you by others" have you considered why pedophile priests were not excommunicated rather than sent to some obscure church in the boon-docks by the holy men of the Catholic church?

Quote from: pointmade on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 09:29:54
They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes.  They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect -- to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God.  The first requirement was not learning, but honesty.  The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others?

Witnesses to what? True, "exegesis" has always been an opinion to the Roman church. "The faith once delivered" (Jude3) is a dead letter to Rome...just make it up as you go, have a pope bless it and "bingo" it is truth. Recall the good old days of the Latin mass and no meat on Friday and of course, no pedophile priests molesting the alter boys? Now, that's real Catholicism with a twist of Holy Spirit regeneration.....lol

You write: "That makes no sense.  The Holy Spirit's role is to guide the Church, which is the body of Christ."
This is exactly why you hold written Scripture as "dead." "Exegesis" of John 16:7-14 tells man the "role" of the Holy Spirit.
John 16:8 is not miraculous regeneration of the will.  Catholicism, as Protestantism has never sorted out who are Apostles (eye witnesess) and who are not.
Augustine, Calvin, and Joseph Smith (with their transcendental experiences) were NOT!

If you are hell bound to "trust doctrine handed down to you by others" have you considered why pedophile priests were not excommunicated rather than sent to some obscure church in the boon-docks by the holy men of the Catholic church?

Do you have an intelligent question or statement to make, point, or just the standard bigoted dragging of the Church of God through the sewer like all you "Christian" types do?

QuoteOh, and LightHammer, honestly, that the Catholic Church was not started until the time of Constantine would get you a failing grade in History of Western Civ. 101.   It requires one to ignore the ample records of the previous 32 Popes before Nicaea and the doctrinal issues the Church faced in the first 300+ years of her history.   I'm not saying that as a slap, but the Church, with her sacraments and magisterium, with her bishops, including the chief bishop of Rome, all her priests and deacons, was fully formed and in existence well before Constantine was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.   

When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine? When before the Council of Nicaea did the successors reorganize completely under Rome?

Im not question apostolic authority. Im not questioning Church leadership through men or the hierchy that Christ set in place through Peter. Im question one thing and that is Catholicism.

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 11:52:11When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine?

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

And the title of "pope" wasnt established until after Nicaea?

Thats the truth.

After catholicism gave whatever successor who stood in the place of Peter the title of pope you went as far as to even refer to Peter himself as the "first" pope. How can you apply a title to man who lived and died his whole life without going by it? How can you apply a title to a man that lived and died before it was created.

There were no "popes" before Nicaea. The Catholic church just decided to refer to all the ranking patriarchs of the past as "pope" after it was created.

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:04:18
And the title of "pope" wasnt established until after Nicaea?

 

Pope just means father.  It is a reference to the Bishop of Rome.

Which came first, the New Testament, or the Catholic Church?

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:03:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 11:52:11When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine?

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Ignatius of Antioch was a GREEK. Catholic is a greek word isnt it?  Catholic is just the english deviation of catholicus which when properly translated maens "universal".

The apostolic successor wasnt calling the church "Catholic" in the limiting means of your denominations. He was expressing that the Church of Jesus Christ was and still is a universal body.

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 11:52:11

QuoteOh, and LightHammer, honestly, that the Catholic Church was not started until the time of Constantine would get you a failing grade in History of Western Civ. 101.   It requires one to ignore the ample records of the previous 32 Popes before Nicaea and the doctrinal issues the Church faced in the first 300+ years of her history.   I'm not saying that as a slap, but the Church, with her sacraments and magisterium, with her bishops, including the chief bishop of Rome, all her priests and deacons, was fully formed and in existence well before Constantine was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.   

When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine? When before the Council of Nicaea did the successors reorganize completely under Rome?

Im not question apostolic authority. Im not questioning Church leadership through men or the hierchy that Christ set in place through Peter. Im question one thing and that is Catholicism.

One of the earliest surviving records of the term?  From St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans...

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church"

St. Ignatius undoubtedly did not originate the title, it did then and does now, simply mean "The, universal, Church of Christ.  He was ordained by St. John the Apostle.

and Rome...

"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).

As just a couple of examples from within the very first post-canonical generations of the Church.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:10:40

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:04:18
And the title of "pope" wasnt established until after Nicaea?

 

Pope just means father.  It is a reference to the Bishop of Rome.

Which came first, the New Testament, or the Catholic Church?

I know what "pope" means and Im saying Peter was never called "pope" nor were any of the successors until after Catholicism was formed. Now let me clarify. Im saying people didnt refer to them as father. Im saying was no title of pope or Vicarius Filli Dei. There no Pope Peter or anything like that.

The New Testament was alredyw ritten and inspried before the Catholic Church. However it was the early catholic authorities that the Holy Spirit chose to work through when canonzing the books of the New Testament together as one.

So baiscally the pieces were already there. The Holy Spirit worked through men of the catholic power to bring them together.

And as chesterton stated, "Pope" is just a term of endearment that means, "papa or daddy".  Even in Catholic publications, it is frequently not capitalised for that reason.

And yes, "catholic" means "universal", but that is exactly as it is meant today.  There is no one "official" title of the Church.  It is actually styled the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or you can use the Church of Christ, Church of God, the Holy Church, any will do and are perfectly acceptable.  

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:11:13

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:03:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 11:52:11When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine?

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Ignatius of Antioch was a GREEK. Catholic is a greek word isnt it?  Catholic is just the english deviation of catholicus which when properly translated maens "universal".

The apostolic successor wasnt calling the church "Catholic" in the limiting means of your denominations. He was expressing that the Church of Jesus Christ was and still is a universal body.

You wanted to know when the Church was first called Catholic. I showed you, now you change the subject to what Catholic means.  This seems to be your typical mode of operation.

St. Ignatius was part of the universal body of Christ, which is the "Catholic Church".

"Everywhere the same!"

You have been fed so many lies that you can't think rationally.  I hope you study and pray on these matters rather than putting on blinders.  God has so much more to teach us!!

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:14:12

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 11:52:11

QuoteOh, and LightHammer, honestly, that the Catholic Church was not started until the time of Constantine would get you a failing grade in History of Western Civ. 101.   It requires one to ignore the ample records of the previous 32 Popes before Nicaea and the doctrinal issues the Church faced in the first 300+ years of her history.   I'm not saying that as a slap, but the Church, with her sacraments and magisterium, with her bishops, including the chief bishop of Rome, all her priests and deacons, was fully formed and in existence well before Constantine was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.   

When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine? When before the Council of Nicaea did the successors reorganize completely under Rome?

Im not question apostolic authority. Im not questioning Church leadership through men or the hierchy that Christ set in place through Peter. Im question one thing and that is Catholicism.

One of the earliest surviving records of the term?  From St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 111 AD, Letter to the Smyrneans...

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church"

St. Ignatius undoubtedly did not originate the title, it did then and does now, simply mean "The, universal, Church of Christ.  He was ordained by St. John the Apostle.

and Rome...

"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).

As just a couple of examples from within the very first post-canonical generations of the Church.

The Church was not officially "Catholic" there is no historical archive that says that Christianity was called the Catholic Church until the Council of Nicaea.

The word "catholic" (lower case "c") when meaning "universal" was applied to God's Church many times but not as an official name for the faith like Catholicism.

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:15:40
I know what "pope" means and Im saying Peter was never called "pope" nor were any of the successors until after Catholicism was formed. Now let me clarify. Im saying people didnt refer to them as father. Im saying was no title of pope or Vicarius Filli Dei. There no Pope Peter or anything like that.

By the time the last book of the New Testament was written the Church was on its fifth pope.

Once again, you are making statements that are flat out false.  It is probably not your fault, but your opinions are based on lies.

Again, the word "pope" is just a term of convenience.  No person is actually elected "Pope", they are elected as chief bishop of the Church, which since Peter, has historically been that of the Bishop of Rome.  It doesn't matter if Peter was called "Pope" or "Pontiff" or any other title that may have been normal to bear in later years.  Peter was the head of the Apostles, our first Bishops, and in that he was Chief bishop.  That is all that the pope is, his titles are secondary to that.  Some have even been dropped, but it changes nothing concerning their role in the Church.

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:18:43
And as chesterton stated, "Pope" is just a term of endearment that means, "papa or daddy".  Even in Catholic publications, it is frequently not capitalised for that reason.

And yes, "catholic" means "universal", but that is exactly as it is meant today.  There is no one "official" title of the Church.  It is actually styled the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or you can use the Church of Christ, Church of God, the Holy Church, any will do and are perfectly acceptable.  

Let me put it like this and maybe you guys will understand my position.

The "holy" office of the Pope did not exist at the time of Peter so therefore Peter was not a Pope. This is the same for all other patriarchs before the Council of Nicaea which basically the womb from which your Catholcism was born.

QuoteThe Church was not officially "Catholic" there is no historical archive that says that Christianity was called the Catholic Church until the Council of Nicaea.

You're not getting that the Church is not"officially" Catholic now in any sense that it was not when the word was used.  The Church does not have any one "official" title.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:20:40

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:11:13

Quote from: chestertonrules on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:03:20

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 11:52:11When under the light of the sun was the word "catholic" established under Christianity before Constantine?

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Ignatius of Antioch was a GREEK. Catholic is a greek word isnt it?  Catholic is just the english deviation of catholicus which when properly translated maens "universal".

The apostolic successor wasnt calling the church "Catholic" in the limiting means of your denominations. He was expressing that the Church of Jesus Christ was and still is a universal body.

You wanted to know when the Church was first called Catholic. I showed you, now you change the subject to what Catholic means.  This seems to be your typical mode of operation.

St. Ignatius was part of the universal body of Christ, which is the "Catholic Church".

"Everywhere the same!"

You have been fed so many lies that you can't think rationally.  I hope you study and pray on these matters rather than putting on blinders.  God has so much more to teach us!!

Take it back a few notches bro. Its not that deep just yet.

The reason I brought up the meaning of the "catholic" was to put it the proper context.

Ignatius wasnt using the word "catholic" as a title but rather an adjective to describe the Church.

Is this a better way to oresent my thoughts?

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:25:04

QuoteThe Church was not officially "Catholic" there is no historical archive that says that Christianity was called the Catholic Church until the Council of Nicaea.

You're not getting that the Church is not"officially" Catholic now in any sense that it was not when the word was used.  The Church does not have any one "official" title.

Are you the Orthodox guy or the RCC guy?

QuoteThe "holy" office of the Pope did not exist at the time of Peter so therefore Peter was not a Pope.

Yes, it did, because there is no "holy office of the pope".  The pope is just the chief bishop of the Church, he carries the nick-name of "pope" as well as other official titles, but he is exactly what Peter was, Head of the ecclesiastical authority of Christ's Church on earth.  The chief Bishop.  

I'm Catholic, btw. 

This is actually not bad for Wiki.  They have it about right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:25:56


Take it back a few notches bro. Its not that deep just yet.

The reason I brought up the meaning of the "catholic" was to put it the proper context.

Ignatius wasnt using the word "catholic" as a title but rather an adjective to describe the Church.

Is this a better way to oresent my thoughts?

The adjective became the title, but the Church didn't change.  Jesus started one Church.

The Catholic Church is universal, and it was universal from the beginning.  To claim that the Catholic Church was created at some other time demonstrates an ignorance of history.

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:27:22

QuoteThe "holy" office of the Pope did not exist at the time of Peter so therefore Peter was not a Pope.

Yes, it did, because there is no "holy office of the pope".  The pope is just the chief bishop of the Church, he carries the nick-name of "pope" as well as other official titles, but he is exactly what Peter was, Head of the ecclesiastical authority of Christ's Church on earth.  The chief Bishop.  

You see this is something new. I thought catholics believed that the office held the authority and not the man. I thought catholics believed that the "nickname" title of "His Holiness" was only given to the Pope because the office he held is holy? So which is it? Is the office, meaning the seat of his authority, holy or the man?

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 16:40:55

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:27:22

QuoteThe "holy" office of the Pope did not exist at the time of Peter so therefore Peter was not a Pope.

Yes, it did, because there is no "holy office of the pope".  The pope is just the chief bishop of the Church, he carries the nick-name of "pope" as well as other official titles, but he is exactly what Peter was, Head of the ecclesiastical authority of Christ's Church on earth.  The chief Bishop.  

You see this is something new. I thought catholics believed that the office held the authority and not the man. I thought catholics believed that the "nickname" title of "His Holiness" was only given to the Pope because the office he held is holy? So which is it? Is the office, meaning the seat of his authority, holy or the man?

What do you mean, "the office held authority and not the man"?  That's confusing.  If the man has the office then that man also has the authority, does he not?  I'm really not sure what you are saying or how it relates to the word, "pope". 

The "office" is that of Peter, chief bishop of the Church, head of the Apostles.  What the "office" is called, is secondary to that and of little consequence to the power and authority of the Church, given it by Christ, to choose their Apostolic replacements, as they did Matthias.

You argument was that as Peter was not called "pope", then no such office existed until the first person was thus called.  We have answered you correctly in saying that the office is not called "pope" and never has been officially.  No one is elected "pope", the term is merely one of affection that did not become common until later in history but over time has come to mean the holder of Peter's See.  Those that held that position before the term came into being were still the chief bishop of the Church and we still may refer to them as "pope", just as they may also be called Holy Father or Patriarch or Pontiff.  What they are called changes nothing as to what they are, i.e., the holder of Peter's See, the chief bishop of the Church.  If you clicked on the Wiki link I provided you will see that the title, "pope" is purely unofficial.

I think that is pretty clear, don't you?

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 17:54:04

Quote from: LightHammer on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 16:40:55

Quote from: desertknight on Wed Apr 28, 2010 - 12:27:22

QuoteThe "holy" office of the Pope did not exist at the time of Peter so therefore Peter was not a Pope.

Yes, it did, because there is no "holy office of the pope".  The pope is just the chief bishop of the Church, he carries the nick-name of "pope" as well as other official titles, but he is exactly what Peter was, Head of the ecclesiastical authority of Christ's Church on earth.  The chief Bishop.  

You see this is something new. I thought catholics believed that the office held the authority and not the man. I thought catholics believed that the "nickname" title of "His Holiness" was only given to the Pope because the office he held is holy? So which is it? Is the office, meaning the seat of his authority, holy or the man?

What do you mean, "the office held authority and not the man"?  That's confusing.  If the man has the office then that man also has the authority, does he not?  I'm really not sure what you are saying or how it relates to the word, "pope". 

The "office" is that of Peter, chief bishop of the Church, head of the Apostles.  What the "office" is called, is secondary to that and of little consequence to the power and authority of the Church, given it by Christ, to choose their Apostolic replacements, as they did Matthias.

You argument was that as Peter was not called "pope", then no such office existed until the first person was thus called.  We have answered you correctly in saying that the office is not called "pope" and never has been officially.  No one is elected "pope", the term is merely one of affection that did not become common until later in history but over time has come to mean the holder of Peter's See.  Those that held that position before the term came into being were still the chief bishop of the Church and we still may refer to them as "pope", just as they may also be called Holy Father or Patriarch or Pontiff.  What they are called changes nothing as to what they are, i.e., the holder of Peter's See, the chief bishop of the Church.  If you clicked on the Wiki link I provided you will see that the title, "pope" is purely unofficial.

I think that is pretty clear, don't you?

I can honestly say that this is pretty clear but forgive me for my stubbornness.

The "pope", or whatever his "official" title is, is infallible when discussing doctrine right? What if the "pope" was a closest porn addict who got off by watching explicit online videos at night? Would his infallibility still be valid?

Im pretty sure the answer is yes right?

Anyway the reason why the Pop remains infallible is because the office of Peter's See is where the true authority lies. Its kindof like a wedding. The groom being the elected bishop and the office of Peter's See are united by God. In a marriage it doesn't matter if someone is faithful or not. If I commit adultery it doesn't mean my marriage is rendered void right then and there. The same is of those who hold apostolic authority. The office i preserved by God just like the union of man and wife and no sinful act can render that authority void.

This is what I mean by the office holds the authority. The office is holy because Holy Christ gave holy authority to leaders of the Church.

But dont get it twisted. I don't believe in the Catholic church as God's Church. Im just stating what I've learned about the Catholic position from the Catechism and other former fellow catholics.

QuoteThe adjective became the title, but the Church didn't change.  Jesus started one Church.

Thats true "the adjective became the title" after 318 successors formulated the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea from the original catholic Church.

All I'm saying is that the formation of the Catholic Church violates the way the successors of God's True catholic Church operated. A handful of successors didn't just meet up and make decisions without the collective. That would lead to utter chaos.