Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[Mad Dawg]

I know one can’t prove a negative, but to suggest that the early congregations had not heard of Rome or a congregation in Rome seems kind of a stretch to me. I just don’t believe it and I don’t see what would lead one to think so.

[Cronos]

For I have never said or suggested we are saved by works,

That's correct, you haven't. And that, Pelagian view is not held by any one of us: whether Baptists or Catholics or Orthodox or Lutherans or Evangelicals or others. None of us believe we can save ourselves.

[Cronos]

Esq: ““The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God.”

Mr Rogers: Nope. The basic principle of Calvinism is the deceitfulness of God. It teaches that God, throughout scripture, over hundreds of passages, tells men to repent - while specifically preventing them from doing so. It calls Jesus a liar, for Jesus said “God so loved the world”, not “God so loved the elect”.

Well put. There is an inherent illogicality to it all and it also flies in the idea of a loving God, which is what we have.

[Cronos]

I know one can’t prove a negative, but to suggest that the early congregations had not heard of Rome or a congregation in Rome seems kind of a stretch to me. I just don’t believe it and I don’t see what would lead one to think so

It's plainly wrong. The only Church that can claim to have been completely separate was The Church of the East -- and that too, only post Shapur's persecution and also only in the extreme North-Eastern provinces of that Church (in the conversion of the Naiman tribe of Mongols for example), not in Persia, India etc. which were always aware of Rome (and conversely Rome was aware of them) -- you err in thinking that the ancient world especially the world bordered by the Atlantic, the Sahara, Siberia and the eastern Himalayas were not in pretty good communication.

[Mad Dawg]

Amazing who few people read Scripture. (Where, presumably, "who"="how")

But more amazing still the number of people who think that if you don't agree with them it must be because you don't read Scripture.

[RnMomof7]

I would never make it personal . That is Gods job:)

[RnMomof7]

I believe they were speaking of what THEY had taught..seeing that the weight of the rest of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles speak against man made tradition.. that is why I ask for the scripture regarding things like statues,purgatory, prayer for the dead,the mass, confession to a priest, apostolic succession and on and on... if it was not a New Testament teaching it is one of the man made traditions that scripture WARNS us about...

[RnMomof7]

Amazing who few people read Scripture.

The love of scripture(I believe) is a mark of regeneration ..."many are called but few are chosen "

[RnMomof7]

I have no heartburn with holding to the traditions learned by word from the Apostles.

How about the ones like the "immaculate conception "and "assumption" and statues etc.. Just give us the scripture for apostolic succession and we are all set then right?

[wagglebee]

To clarify: a question is seldom "making it personal" because it invites a response. It is tentative.

Normally I would agree, but I think in this case it was different.

When RnMomof7 asked if "calling a spade a spade" was a racial epithet it brought a new dimension into the discussion. It suggested that there was valid reason to question if the term was used as a racial epithet.

[Mad Dawg]

This seems to be the standoff. I find ALL the "Sola Scriptura can be proved from Scriptura" arguments about as bogus as can be. They involve forced interpretations, and after a lot of back and forth in turns out that the texts cited COMPORT with Sola Scriptura but don't show it.

SO from our POV the request for some Scriptura to justify what we were doing anyway seems just as forced.

And while the question about who gets to interpret the definitions and declarations from councils and popes is an okay question, it doesn't answer the obvious fact that, from Episcopalians to Jehovah's Witnesses, there is an incredible range of opinion among those who profess some form of Sola Scriptura.

My suspicion of the whole thing is exacerbated by the inability of the average SS adherent to give an accurate presentation of the beliefs from which he recoils. There seems to be a persistent need to explain how the doctrines we cop to differ from the doctrines we are alleged to cop to. And so, from here we see assailants getting all in a lather about something that doesn't exist, teachings we do not teach, practices we do not practice, while they REQUIRE us to take them seriously.

[Mad Dawg]

Suggestion RNMOMO'Lots and Lots was trying to be funny.

She should leave playing the fool to guys like me, to whom it comes more natural (See Twelfth Night, Shakespeare, esp: Andrew Aguecheek)

[annalex]

You are right, it is all St. John the Baptist’s fault, and the Apostles’.

[stfassisi]

“”Knowing how the RCC idolizes suffering as a merit gainer””

This is not true,dear friend, we are willing to suffer out of humility and for love of neighbor and those in need, we expect nothing in return for this sacrificial unconditional love.

Try reading the lives of Saint Benedicta the Cross(Edith Stien)who was a Jewish convert to Catholicism and executed by the Nazi's and you will get an idea of what's being said here
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/edith_stein.htm

[PGalt]

Interesting, informative, educational thread. Thanks for starting it. Thanks to all posters.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Now there’s a campaign slogan: Vote for Brown to save Coakley’s soul!

Coakley is evil; she must be removed from the temptation to commit more evil. It’s funny about people like her — they don’t mind signing evil papers, but I doubt she could personally do the most evil acts her signatures generate. She is a tool of evil, but I think a loss today would free her and possibly be an important first step toward her salvation. A simple loss.

[John Leland 1789]

Well what happened is that official church art work and histories have gone together to produce an image that all of the Apostles and those trained by the apostles all looked like and were something of the same order as what would would be familiar to people raised with the imagery and pageantry of the “See of Rome.”

Then when speaking of churches, the discussion keeps getting drug back to the concept of supra-church organizational structures, e.g. “The Church of the East,” The “Catholic Church,” etc.

But the churches established with believers who were personally won to Christ by the Apostles were simple local assemblies of believers. Believers moved on from place to place for various reasons just as they do today.

We simply do not believe-—we outright reject-—that a supra-church bishopric held any sway at all with the general number of believers in Asia Minor, Palestine, Eastern Europe before the last half of the 3rd century at the earliest, when certain bishops got hungry for power and control over multiplicities of local churches.

Up to that time there was not only a (singular) church in Rome, but there were multiple local assemblies of Christians. Even the Epistle to the Romans in the New Testament is not addressed to one single congregation, and there is not exalted one single over-arching bishopric. It did not exist.

These small congregations would have been springing up anywhere believers traveled from town to town, for in that day, individual believers believed that they were the “vicars” of Christ on earth -— ambassadors for Christ, and were soul-winning Christians (They were not beer and BBQ “Christians” in those days.). They were also copiers of Scriptures, the letters they had received from the apostles. And the Body of Christ (the true union of all believers in Christ under one Heavenly Head, not dependent on a visible earthly “SEE”) was spreading northward and westward.

There is no reason to believe that individual soul-winning believers were not already moving westward and northward with the Gospel from Palestine and Syria from 45 and 50 AD. What would would have prevented it? The very idea that all Christians and Christian congregations were under one “SEE” located in central Italy from the very outset is ridiculous. ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. And there are plenty of credible histories that deal with it. Of course, one has to be able to believe that there were skilled and honest historians who were never concerned as to whether their works ever had a particular church's stamp of approval on them.

I mean just think of a traveler having heard the Gospel and having believed on Christ in, say, 45 AD in Antioch. His home is somewhere in th current-day Czech Republic. The new Christian goes home and begins to expound the salvation he has experienced by faith in Christ. Soon, he has won others to Jesus Christ, and they form a congregation of believers. Several years or several decades could have passed before they were aware of a “SEE” in Rome, even if they had traveled to other congregations where they might find copies of the Scriptures in part or in whole.

Just looking at the normal migration of peoples in the first and second centuries, and realizing that the spread of the Gospel was very fast by the means of personal evabngelism (See 1 Thessalonians 1:7-10)-—the winning of people to Christ by the Gospel and the establishing of local congregations of believers would have occurred at a much more rapid rate than the establishment of any elaborate “SEE”, which many of those early believers never did SEE nor HEAR of.

[Cronos]

It’s hardly official Church historians — check ANY unbiased historian and you will see the same — Christians from Apostolic Churchs have remained in contact since apostolic times. There have been gaps of a century or so, but no group would have not heard of Roma or Jerusalem or the bishop of Rome.

[Cronos]

But the churches established with believers who were personally won to Christ by the Apostles were simple local assemblies of believers. Believers moved on from place to place for various reasons just as they do today

Yes, and they remained in the hierarch structures -- check any historical background. Even the Naimans were in contact with the CAtholicos of Ctesiphon-Selucia

[Cronos]

We simply do not believe-—we outright reject-—that a supra-church bishopric held any sway at all with the general number of believers in Asia Minor, Palestine, Eastern Europe before the last half of the 3rd century at the earliest,

No one's asking you to believe -- just check the historical documents and you'll see that that rejection is false.

Up to that time there was not only a (singular) church in Rome, but there were multiple local assemblies of Christians. Even the Epistle to the Romans in the New Testament is not addressed to one single congregation, and there is not exalted one single over-arching bishopric. It did not exist.

That is also incorrect, there was an apostle for each group to ensure that it did not fall away under the influence of the Montanists or the Gnostics or any of the other "reforming" sects that arose.

Without it, you would be now confirming the Gospel of Thomas as scripture


And the Body of Christ (the true union of all believers in Christ under one Heavenly Head, not dependent on a visible earthly “SEE”) was spreading northward and westward.

That's quite wrong -- Christianity didn't spread into provincial Gaul and Britannica until well into the 2nd century and that too, under authority from Bishops. Christianity in the First century spread to Jewish areas first and to Roman metropoli -- Christianity was initially predominantly urban, while the rural persons (pagan means rural peasant) stuck to the old gods for a lot longer. Check that in historical records

There is no reason to believe that individual soul-winning believers were not already moving westward and northward with the Gospel from Palestine and Syria from 45 and 50 AD. What would would have prevented it?

For the simple reason that they were not initially sure if they should spread to non-Jewish folks. That wasn't really settled until 69 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem when the Jewish-Christians were dispersed. Post that, the Church became gentile.

And, for the simple reason that Christianity spread and organized itself as per Roman organisation -- it spread along Roman roads (the Appian Way, etc)


The very idea that all Christians and Christian congregations were under one “SEE” located in central Italy from the very outset is ridiculous. ABSOLUTELY ridiculous

No one said that -- Christians in Alexandria were under the see of Alexandria -- this included Lybia, Cyrene, Nubia and Mauritania Pacis, those in Jerusalem, Nabatea, Arabia Felix were under the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Those in Syria, Anatolia and Achea were under Antioch. The Church in Rome grew slowest as that region was not as urbanized as the EAst, hence the bishoprics were tightly held, unlike the East.

Churchs in Ireland too in later centuries, remained faithful to Rome.

You seem to think that the see of Rome would send out daily communications. No, that wasn't possible until the telegraph. However, the congregations were in contact, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In actuality, they could go for years without hearing from him and may even stray, however, their local bishop was supposed to ensure they didn't fall into heresies like Gnosticism or even Donatism etc.

the BISHOP was due to report to Rome.

If you consider that "The very idea that all Christians and Christian congregations were under one “SEE” located in central Italy from the very outset is ridiculous. ABSOLUTELY ridiculous", then you probably consider that the idea that all people in the Roman Empire were under one EMPEROR located in central Italy or Constantinople as ridiculous? Or that all people in the Mongol Empire (4 times larger than the Roman) were under one Khagan? sheesh


I mean just think of a traveler having heard the Gospel and having believed on Christ in, say, 45 AD in Antioch. His home is somewhere in th current-day Czech Republic. The new Christian goes home and begins to expound the salvation he has experienced by faith in Christ. Soon, he has won others to Jesus Christ, and they form a congregation of believers. Several years or several decades could have passed before they were aware of a “SEE” in Rome, even if they had traveled to other congregations where they might find copies of the Scriptures in part or in whole.

Incorrect -- current-day Czech Republic in 45 AD was outside the Roman Empire and populated sparsely, if at all, by Vandals or other barbarian Germanics. They were illiterate and definitely didn't know Koine Greek.

If there was this Germanic who came to Antioch, to go back would have been rare, if not impossible in 45 AD. Let's however, for arguments sake, say he DID and he knew Greek. Then, in that case, he would want to ensure that His teachings were true, so HIS teacher would be the priest or Bishop in Antioch. To think that would not have heard of the bishop of Rome, St. Peter, is ludicrous.

Just looking at the normal migration of peoples in the first and second centuries, and realizing that the spread of the Gospel was very fast by the means of personal evabngelism

The migration of peoples didn't start until well into the 3rd century when the Han Empire defeated the Xiongnu and pushed them west and they pushed the Scyths, who pushed the Sarmatians, who pushed the Slavs, who pushed the GErmanics, who pushed the Celts etc. culminating in the 4th and 5th centuries.

In 45 AD, the Roman Empire stopped at the Rhine in the north and was more concerned with the Parthians to the East.

45 AD was the reign of Claudius.