Posted on 06/07/2007 4:07:42 AM PDT by markomalley
Since Irenaeus wrote decades after Ignatius, how come Irenaeus doesn't call the Church in Rome "the Catholic Church". If it was so well known as such then how come its proper name as the "Catholic Church" is not used by Irenaeus or other writers until the 4th century.
Also don't forget that before the ink was dry on the epistles that Paul wrote there were people corrupting his letters, making spurious copies and trying to pawn them off as legitimate. While God promised to look after His Word [the writings of Paul, et al], He never promised to do the same with those that followed the apostles.
We also know that Origen was a skillful corrupter of Bible texts. What makes us think that he and others like him weren't also corrupting the writings of patriarchs such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, and others that were not under divine oversight
See post 32.
See post 32.
Exactly. Agreed. And the Devil likes to keep people confused in that way. As St. Paul said, For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
Since you’re making a critical reference of Richard’s post, you should at least ping him.
I did not mention him by name or comment on his post. I just referred some freepers to his post for reference.
But just to keep it on the up and up, I will ping him to this post.
See post 32.
Act 9:1-5 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;
1 Cor 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
In the first account, Jesus infers that the Church, who Saul was persecuting, was His body. In the second quote, St. Paul directly comes out and says it.
In post #32, which you so frequently cite, RichardMoore says,
When Saul was knocked off his horse and saw Jesus he was on his way to kill Christians. Jesus said to him,"why do you persecute ME?"
Not My Church, or My people, but ME.
Jesus equates Himself with His Church which is founded on Apostolic Succession
While I personally would have said it a little differently (perhaps something like, Jesus identifies His Church as His Body), I'm not sure what other direct conclusion one could draw.
Perhaps rather than simple accusations, you could outline how Jesus did NOT, in fact, identify His Church as His Body (and, by extension, Himself...see the money line from Acts 9:4-5!). In other words, rather than simply stating "you're wrong," you could outline how scripture doesn't actually say that.
Have you noticed my exchange with markomally? My contention is she didn't have and didn't need a "proper name", and we can't know what appellations were considered "proper" in the early textsw because they didn't do capital letters as we do. I don't see how we can know that ignatius or anyone else would think of "Catholic Church" as a "proper name". She was "the universal Church", and when oppositions arise then "catholic" starts being used, it seems, as a battle cry against the heretics (who probably thought THEY were "catholic"!)
Also I think you overstate two cases.
(1) That there were forgeries is agreed. But if someone asks, "Show me where anyone called the Church 'catholic'," and then for every piece of adverse data says, "Well, there were forgeries, you know," then it begins to look like the challenge was not really meaningful. If every piece of adverse data is untrustworthy, then why ask for data? "Before the ink was dry ...?" Do we know that and that time frame? Every doubt we cast on the text of the post apostolic documents impinges at least a little on the text of NT documents, I would guess.
(2) We know there was a congregation in Rome> The internal evidence is that Paul is writing to Rome before he got there. Do we know it was well organized, teaching good solid doctrine, practicing approved initiations and such?
I general it seems a tendency of religious disputation to overstate one's case. So I would note it carefully when someone arguing against any Ignatian overstatement was himself claiming more knowledge than he could have.
Are you denying that the Roman Catholic Church is God?
Let's make up our minds here.
You wrote:
“Not the capital “c”’s in Catholic and Church -— but you know that, right???”
No, it was used essentially as a proper noun.
“”The “Catholic Church” was an invertion of Constantine in the 4th century.”
Nope. The Catholci Church existed BEFORE him. This was known to people in his day as well as long before.
“Those are the historical facts at odds with your hysterical myths.”
I have no myths whatsoever and I am never hysterical. You, however, seem to be hysterically avoiding my question.
Where exactly in the magisterium do you see that Peter was the first bishop of Rome?
Are you denying that the Roman Catholic Church is God?
Let's make up our minds here.
I'll type s-l-o-w-l-y this time.
Jesus identifies His Church as His Body
Let me re-phrase that in case it wasn't clear:
Jesus identifies His (the Universal) Church as His Body
Does that help?
To review your original question, Are you making the claim that The Roman Catholic Church is God, the only person making that ridiculous claim is you.
As I requested before,
Perhaps rather than simple accusations, you could outline how Jesus did NOT, in fact, identify His Church as His Body (and, by extension, Himself...see the money line from Acts 9:4-5!). In other words, rather than simply stating "you're wrong," you could outline how scripture doesn't actually say that.
Try it...dialogue generally works that way.
Are you making the claim that The Roman Catholic Church is God.
Are you denying that the Roman Catholic Church is God?
Let’s make up our minds here.
((bump))
Apparently we have a stuck LP record. Refute the scriptures posted or the statements made and we can continue...
Answer the questions and then we'll see if we are not in agreement. If you answer no to both questions, then we are in agreement and no further discussion is needed. If you answer yes to either question, then you can show me the scriptures.
How hard is that?
I believe he has made his case. If you want to defend your belief, this would be the time. We’re all waiting anxiously.
I don't understand your question -----
Peter “founding” the Church at Rome does not mean he was the first one there, it just means he was the Apostle who organized it and was the first to head it up.
Irenaeus calls the whole church “the Catholic Church”...of which Rome was just the most important See. His usage is certainly correct...as I think you pointed out earlier, “catholic” means universal. So he wouldn’t (and I don;t think we should either) call *just* the church in Rome “the Catholic Church”.
God did promise to look after the Church though! “Upon this roke I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” That’s God looking after the people in the Church, is it not? Protecting them from Satan?
I dunno about all that with Origen...but again, you can say that about anything. That’s exactly what the Muslims say about the New TEstament...”it was corrupted.” It’s a convenient “out” of the problem, but there’s really no positive evidence to suggest it. As I said before, proof of a corrupted text usually takes the form of older, uncorrupted manuscript traditions or at least wide divergences in the existing texts. Or clear internal evidence within the text itself, such as jarring changes in style. We don’t have that here....and I have not heard any reputable person in Patristics or anywhere suggest that Origen or anyone else doctored Irenaeus.
Very well summarized in #88!
I didn't think you wanted me to post to you. I got the feeling that you didn't like me. Does this mean we're friends now?
Actually, in the real world, I don’t see you as a friend. You don’t strike me as fitting my personality. I don’t see you as a person with a sense of humor, or of adventure or fun. I might have you as an acquiantance and say “Hello” to you and the grocery store and exchange pleasantries about the weather but I honestly don’t see it. So I guess in the cyberworld you qualify as an acquintance.
You can correct me if I have come to the wrong conclusion of what type of person you are, but can you back it up with scripture :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.