Catholic Church definition of the canonical scriptures.

[Josiah]

The Church is found in Scripture. So, when did the Church become Roman Catholic?

Never.

Read post 77.

And remember: proper nouns are capitalized, adjectives are not. The word "catholic" (whole, universal, all-embracing) can be an adjective.... but at some point (perhaps not until the 4th Century?) it also became a proper noun, the moniker for western, Latin churches within the Roman Church, "Catholic."

Lees, IF you are registered in a parish belonging to the Roman Catholic Church .... you are Catholic. IF you are a Christian, you are a part of the church catholic. About half of current Christians are both, about half are catholic but not Catholic... Christians but not a registered member of a parish owned and operated by The Roman Catholic Church.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Catholic as in Catholic.

Catholic is a Latin word that means Universal. Since the early church fathers spoke Latin, they meant Universal.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

nm

 

[Lees]

Never.

Read post 77.

And remember: proper nouns are capitalized, adjectives are not. The word "catholic" (whole, universal, all-embracing) can be an adjective.... but at some point (perhaps not until the 4th Century?) it also became a proper noun, the moniker for western, Latin churches within the Roman Church, "Catholic."

Lees, IF you are registered in a parish belonging to the Roman Catholic Church .... you are Catholic. IF you are a Christian, you are a part of the church catholic. About half of current Christians are both, about half are catholic but not Catholic... Christians but not a registered member of a parish owned and operated by The Roman Catholic Church.



.

Never? How and when did the Eastern Orthodox Church begin? How and when did the Protestant Churches begin?

I did read it. That is why I asked your source for what was quoted in the first half, which you never gave.

Read post #(66), (69), (70), and (72).

Lees

 

[Josiah]

Never?

Here is what you posted:

when did the Church become Roman Catholic?

Here is what I posted:

Never.

Yes, the church catholic never became The Roman Catholic Church. The church catholic is ALL Christians (past and present), The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination. NEVER did all Christians become a denomination.

when did the Eastern Orthodox Church begin?

Those denominations claim to trace their history back to Pentecost, perhaps around 32 AD. The Roman Catholic Church does the same. But there is zero evidence to support either claim; in fact there is very little to suggest there was ANY denomination before the 4th Century - although perhaps elements of such probably existed.

In the early 4th Century, the Roman Empire created the first denomination, The Roman Church. And since that was a state church (and soon the state religion), there was a strong link and connection between that denomination and the Empire. But that denomination was ONLY for the Empire so never included all Christians, and it was never very united - there were ever growing differences between the Latin Western congregations and the Greek Eastern ones, but they were one denomination, technically anyway.

When did The Roman Church split? Well, OFFICIALLY and FORMALLY in 1054... but they we're not on speaking terms for perhaps 200 years before that. They have been on different paths from the beginning, growing ever more apart. The split in 1054 is well documented and you can read all about it for yourself.


Sorry for participating in the hijack. Back to the issue at hand...



.

 

[Lees]

Here is what you posted:



Here is what I posted:



Yes, the church catholic never became The Roman Catholic Church. The church catholic is ALL Christians (past and present), The Roman Catholic Church is a denomination. NEVER did all Christians become a denomination.





Those denominations claim to trace their history back to Pentecost, perhaps around 32 AD. The Roman Catholic Church does the same. But there is zero evidence to support either claim; in fact there is very little to suggest there was ANY denomination before the 4th Century - although perhaps elements of such probably existed.

In the early 4th Century, the Roman Empire created the first denomination, The Roman Church. And since that was a state church (and soon the state religion), there was a strong link and connection between that denomination and the Empire. But that denomination was ONLY for the Empire so never included all Christians, and it was never very united - there were ever growing differences between the Latin Western congregations and the Greek Eastern ones, but they were one denomination, technically anyway.

When did The Roman Church split? Well, OFFICIALLY and FORMALLY in 1054... but they we're not on speaking terms for perhaps 200 years before that. They have been on different paths from the beginning, growing ever more apart. The split in 1054 is well documented and you can read all about it for yourself.


Sorry for participating in the hijack. Back to the issue at hand...



.

The entire Universal (Catholic) Church traces it's history back to Pentecost.

Yes, in 1054 the 'Church' split. And what was it when it split? Roman Catholic. And how did it split. The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Thus all were under the Roman Catholic authority till the split.

How and when did the Protestant churches begin? Through the Reformation in the 16th century. The Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

One could even cite as to how the Church of England started it's own Church? Through King Henry the VIII, England no longer answered to the Pope, but to the King or Queen.

Point being: There was a time when all the Church was under the rule of Rome. Roman Catholic. But it didn't start out that way. Thus my question was, when did the Church become Roman Catholic. Because it most certainly did.

No apology necessary...for that at least.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

The entire Universal (Catholic) Church traces it's history back to Pentecost.

Well, LOTS of denominations CLAIM to have been founded at Pentecost, around 32 or so AD. NONE of them have anything to substantiate the claim.

But yes, CHRISTIANITY can be traced back to then, in fact, some would point to Mary and Elizabeth in Luke 1 as the beginning of Christianity, others even to the promise in Genesis, others to the Incarnation. But no denomination even claims to have begun then.

Yes, in 1054 the 'Church' split.

No. Christianity did not split, the Roman Church did. Never were all congregations owned and operated by The Roman Church, but many were. In 1054 there was the OFFICIAL, FORMAL split of that denomination.

Now, I guess one could make a point that the Roman Church (the church of the Roman Empire, the denomination created by the Empire for the Empire) was a PROTO denomination of many of the Orthodox churches and of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was neither. But that PROTO dates only to the 4th Century, not before. And it NEVER included all Christians or all congregations - only those within in Empire (at most).

And what was it when it split? Roman Catholic.

Tell that to the world's 400,000,000 Orthodox Christians! They'll laugh in your face.... and show you that they have AT LEAST as much claim to the Roman Church as the Latin, Western churches.... their bishops just as significant as that one in Rome.

But 1054 was a split of a denomination, not Christianity. The church catholic has never split... and cannot do so, which is why the Bible calls it ONE. But denominations can.... many do every year.

Point being: There was a time when all the Church was under the rule of Rome. Roman Catholic. But it didn't start out that way. Thus my question was, when did the Church become Roman Catholic. Because it most certainly did.

Then you assume the Roman Catholic claim is true. You presented no evidence for such because you have none. Christianity was never a denomination - the Roman Catholic one or the Coptic Orthodox one or any other.



.

 

[Albion]

The entire Universal (Catholic) Church traces it's history back to Pentecost.

That's true in the sense that Christianity with its organized structure began at that time. It doesn't say much about the various divisions within the Christian churches, however, and there were many of them from almost the beginning of Christian history.

Yes, in 1054 the 'Church' split. And what was it when it split? Roman Catholic.

False. The Church was far from being a united "Roman Catholic Church" prior to the Schism of 1054.

And how did it split. The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Thus all were under the Roman Catholic authority till the split.

LOL. The members of the Church in the West largely stayed with the bishop of Rome in 1054 while almost all the church members in the Eastern part of the Empire stayed with the bishops we know as the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, along with their churches. But there were at that time already a number of OTHER split-offs from the so-called "Unified Church" of the ancient era. The Oriental Orthodox churches (the Copts, for instance) had not been under either the bishops of Rome or Constantinople for centuries.

And don't forget that the Orthodox maintain that the Pope broke away from the Eastern Orthodox in 1054, not the other way around.

How and when did the Protestant churches begin? Through the Reformation in the 16th century. The Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

True. But some other groups had done the same thing a number of times prior to this.

One could even cite as to how the Church of England started it's own Church?

Wrong again. The Church of England, which is the historic catholic church of Britain, was founded there in the first century.

Henry VIII did not found a new church, nor did he introduce the dogmas of the continental Protestant Reformation into England. In fact, he forbid that from happening.

Ultimately, the Pope gave up on his many coup attempts aimed at putting a Roman Catholic on the throne of England, and so ordered all Englishmen who supported him to break away from the Church in England. This was done, and they set up new churches of their own.

Point being: There was a time when all the Church was under the rule of Rome. Roman Catholic.

Very few people are so uninformed as to believe that fable. It's popular in Roman Catholic circles, however, which is not surprising.

But it didn't start out that way. Thus my question was, when did the Church become Roman Catholic.

Well, some of the ancient church did become Roman Catholic. Large parts of the ancient churches formed into rival denominations/churches, however.

As to when the Roman Catholic Church started, the usual benchmark is about 400 AD when the Bishop of Rome began converting himself into a one-man administrator of all the churches under his jurisdiction and (in theory) of all churches everywhere, in defiance of the historic system of regional rule under the successors of the Apostles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholic is a Latin word that means Universal. Since the early church fathers spoke Latin, they meant Universal.

Catholic really means "according to the whole" rather than "universal" and the idea of the Catholic in Catholic Church is more about conformance to the consensus of the whole Church than about some vague universality. Nevertheless the Catholic Church has vast geographic, cultural, and time extension. It is ancient, it is on every continent, it is in nearly every land, and in nearly every culture.

 

[Lees]

Well, LOTS of denominations CLAIM to have been founded at Pentecost, around 32 or so AD. NONE of them have anything to substantiate the claim.

But yes, CHRISTIANITY can be traced back to then, in fact, some would point to Mary and Elizabeth in Luke 1 as the beginning of Christianity, others even to the promise in Genesis, others to the Incarnation. But no denomination even claims to have begun then.





No. Christianity did not split, the Roman Church did. Never were all congregations owned and operated by The Roman Church, but many were. In 1054 there was the OFFICIAL, FORMAL split of that denomination.

Now, I guess one could make a point that the Roman Church (the church of the Roman Empire, the denomination created by the Empire for the Empire) was a PROTO denomination of many of the Orthodox churches and of the Roman Catholic Church, but it was neither. But that PROTO dates only to the 4th Century, not before. And it NEVER included all Christians or all congregations - only those within in Empire (at most).






Tell that to the world's 400,000,000 Orthodox Christians! They'll laugh in your face.... and show you that they have AT LEAST as much claim to the Roman Church as the Latin, Western churches.... their bishops just as significant as that one in Rome.

But 1054 was a split of a denomination, not Christianity. The church catholic has never split... and cannot do so, which is why the Bible calls it ONE. But denominations can.... many do every year.





Then you assume the Roman Catholic claim is true. You presented no evidence for such because you have none. Christianity was never a denomination - the Roman Catholic one or the Coptic Orthodox one or any other.



.

Again, the Church of Jesus Christ originated at Pentacost. There was no Roman Catholic. There was no Protestant. It was the Church. Thus, all denominations existing today can trace their origin back to Pentecost.

In 1054 the Church split. And, the Church was Roman Catholic. That is why it split. The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pretty simple. The Pope is not going to 'excommnunicate' one who is not under his authority. In other words, the Church was Roman Catholic up to that time.

No. 1054 was a split of the Roman Catholic Church. But that shows that the Roman Catholic Church was in authority over the Church of Jesus Christ.

Eastern Orthodox can laugh all they want. Immaterial. They were part of the Roman Catholic Church. Same with Protestants. Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. Thus all Protestants are connected to the Roman Catholic Church, but as reformers or revolutionaries.

And, the Church of England, Anglican, split to remove itself from the authority of the Pope, due to King Henry the VIII. Which shows the Church was Roman Catholic.

All 'denominations' are a result of separtaing from the Roman Church. Whether they be Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, or Church of England.

Your last statement is ridiculous and not what I said. I said it was not that way at the beginning. And I asked, when did the Church become Roman Catholic? Because it did become Roman Catholic.

The reference to these bodies of believers leaving the Roman Church is proof that the Church was then Roman Catholic. Your statement of 'no proof' is not well thought out.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Albion

See post #(90).

Lees

 

[Albion]

Again, the Church of Jesus Christ originated at Pentacost.

True enough.

There was no Roman Catholic. There was no Protestant. It was the Church. Thus, all denominations existing today can trace their origin back to Pentecost.

Not all, but most of them, yes.

In 1054 the Church split. And, the Church was Roman Catholic. That is why it split.

Not exactly. This was the biggest single split in church history, but there had already been other splits. I mentioned just one of the better known ones as an example.

The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pretty simple. The Pope is not going to 'excommnunicate' one who is not under his authority.

Well, all you are saying there is that the Pope was claiming a certain authority. The churches in the East certainly didn't acknowledge that claim and didn't do so before the Schism.

The bishops of the East denied these Papal claims before and after the split. It's much like the claim that the Roman Church still makes with regard to all Protestant churches. If any church imagines that it's the "only true church," it follows that it will also claim jurisdiction over the whole world, even if that's a pipe dream.

In other words, the Church was Roman Catholic up to that time.

Some of it was. But only some.

No. 1054 was a split of the Roman Catholic Church. But that shows that the Roman Catholic Church was in authority over the Church of Jesus Christ.

It shows nothing more than that the RCC laid claim to something that it couldn't back up with actual jurisdiction. It's a feature of Roman theology, not unlike the claims of various fringe Protestant churches, each insisting that it alone is the direct descendent of the church founded at Pentecost.. No one else takes such talk seriously; and it's not supported by any historical evidence.

Eastern Orthodox can laugh all they want. Immaterial. They were part of the Roman Catholic Church.

The two were part of the same church, which wasn't the whole of the Christian world. That's the real situation, all the boasting and strutting engaged in by either side in the 1054 schism aside.

 

[Lees]

@MoreCoffee

Concerning your post #(89):

Catholic means universal. It speaks to the entire Church of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Church was able to get power over the Catholic Church, making it then the 'Roman Catholic' Church.

The Roman Church doesn't like to be reminded of that, which is why they don't like to use the word 'Roman' when they don't have to. Just like you.

But they are 'Roman Catholic'. Not Catholic.

Lees

 

[Lees]

True enough.

Not all, but most of them, yes.

Not exactly. This was the biggest single split in church history, but there had already been other splits. I mentioned just one of the better known ones as an example.


Well, all you are saying there is that the Pope was claiming a certain authority. The churches in the East certainly didn't acknowledge that claim and didn't do so before the Schism. The bishops of the East denied these Papal claims before and after the split. It's much like the claim that the Roman Church makes with regard to all Protestant churches. It's a hollow claim, but she nevertheless claims universal jurisdiction, meaning claiming authority over all other Christians, whether Orthodox or Protestant or something else.

Some of it was. But only some.

It shows nothing more than that the RCC laid claim to something that it couldn't back up with actual jurisdiction. It's just a feature of Roman theology, not unlike the claims of various fringe Protestant churches that insist that they alone are the inheritors of the church founded at Pentecost.. No one else takes such talk seriously and it's not supported by any historical evidence.

The two were part of the same church, which wasn't the whole of the Christian world. That's the real situation, all the boasting and strutting engaged in by either side in the 1054 schism aside.

All denominations in the Church of Jesus Christ can trace their origin back to Pentecost. Where else would they trace it?

Yes, exactly. The split in 1054 was a division of the Church which was Roman Catholic. Just like with the Protestant Reformers.

The Pope had that authority because it resulted in a split of the Church. Again, yes, the same is true with the Protestant Reformation. Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. As were the rest of the Reformers. They were Roman Catholic. Hence....the Church was Roman Catholic at that time.

You're not paying attention. Please try and....... I have said repeatedly that the Church was not Roman Catholic at the begining. Neither was it Protestant. Which begs my question, when did the Church of Jesus Christ become Roman Catholic? Because it did.

Lees

 

[Albion]

All denominations in the Church of Jesus Christ can trace their origin back to Pentecost.

Only in the sense of saying "they were Christian, and we are Christian, so that means we trace our origins to that time period." Of course, it's nonsense since for some of them, the beliefs, the governance, the worship practices, and so much more bear almost no resemblance to what the first Christians did and believed.

A lot of these denominations--but not the ones you referred to--originated when some person of more recent times had a brainstorm and said that he was the one who, out of all history, had gotten it correct! Think Joseph Smith, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Charles Taze Russell, or others of our own times.

Yes, exactly. The split in 1054 was a division of the Church which was Roman Catholic. Just like with the Protestant Reformers.

No. But I explained this to you. You're just unfamiliar with the facts of history and unwilling to be introduced to them.

The Pope had that authority because it resulted in a split of the Church.

It resulted in a split because the churches of the East would not accept as valid the non-Apostolic and unorthodox claims to universal jurisdiction that the Pope was making. That's not what you would like to believe.

And don't forget that the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope in the midst of this dispute, so that fact flies in the face of the claim you've been making. It's probably also why you never mention this feature of the Great Schism. .

Again, yes, the same is true with the Protestant Reformation. Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. As were the rest of the Reformers. They were Roman Catholic. Hence....the Church was Roman Catholic at that time.

Those particular churches were. But they are not the only ones to have been independent of the Roman bishop over the centuries before and after.

I have said repeatedly that the Church was not Roman Catholic at the begining.

And I agreed that you were correct on that much at least.

 

[Lees]

Only in the sense of saying "they were Christian, and we are Christian, so that means we trace our origins to that time period." Of course, it's nonsense since for some of them, the beliefs, the governance, the worship practices, and so much more bear almost no resemblance to what the first Christians did and believed.

A lot of these denominations--but not the ones you referred to--originated when some person of more recent times had a brainstorm and said that he was the one who, out of all history, had gotten it correct! Think Joseph Smith, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Charles Taze Russell, or others of our own times.



No. But I explained this to you. You're just unfamiliar with the facts of history and unwilling to be introduced to them.

It resulted in a split because the churches of the East would not accept as valid the non-Apostolic and unorthodox claims to universal jurisdiction that the Pope was making. That's not what you would like to believe.

And don't forget that the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope in the midst of this dispute, so that fact flies in the face of the claim you've been making. It's probably also why you never mention this feature of the Great Schism. .


Those particular churches were. But they are not the only ones to have been independent of the Roman bishop over the centuries before and after.


And I agreed that you were correct on that much at least.

Well, of course they were Christian. We are talking about the Christian Church. The Church had it's origin at Pentecost.

I haven't referred to any denominations. I am speaking of the Church. The various splits in the Church came later. Thsese splits were then from the Roman Catholic Church.

The Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope after he had been excommunicated. That there had been disagreements before leading up to this split, of course. Just like with the Reformers in the 16th century. And though there are differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic Church, the Orthodox still bears similarities in both doctrine and liturgy with the Roman Church. Which are a product of the Roman Church.

The same is true with the Reformation. There were those in the Roman Church who disagreed with Rome. The fact that it resulted in a split is proof that the Church was Roman Catholic. And with the Reformation Church, you still see also similarities in doctrine and liturgy carrying over in many Protestant Churches.

There were no particular churches that the Reformers represented. The Reformers were not independent from the Roman Church until the Reformation when they either were excommunicated, left, or were killed. Luther wasn't trying to create a denomination. He was trying to reform the Roman Church.

So, again, the Church, the Catholic Church, the Universal Church of Jesus Christ, at the beginning, which was at Pentecost, was not Roman Catholic. It was simply the Church. And various local churches were started by Christians like Paul, and Barnabas etc. etc. And various leaders would be appointed in those churches, as they should be.

But over time, due to several causes, the church at Rome slowly began to be perceived as the leading church. One of the main causes was Rome being the capital of the Roman Empire. And the Bishop at the Roman Church began to be seen as the leading Bishop, resulting in what later we call the Pope, and the Papacy.

And over time, several hundred years, Rome gained the power over the Church, making it the Roman Catholic Church.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Well, of course they were Christian. We are talking about the Christian Church.

Not really, You were trying to say that it was the Roman Catholic Church in particular, NOT just Christianity in general.

I haven't referred to any denominations. I am speaking of the Church.

You certainly did. See the reminder above.

I am speaking of the Church. The various splits in the Church came later. Thsese splits were then from the Roman Catholic Church.

There were many that came earlier. That's another item about which you don't care to know the actual history.

The Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope after he had been excommunicated.

The timing doesn't change anything. Your theory about everything being Roman Catholic until various groups split off from the RCC in 1054 and afterwards...plus the fact of the Pope issuing an excommunication order against the Patriarch being cited by you as alleged "proof" that the Schism was totally one-sided, is fanciful and, I am guessing, based upon nothing more than you having picked up some misinformation somewhere along the way.

 

[NathanH83]

Catholic really means "according to the whole" rather than "universal" and the idea of the Catholic in Catholic Church is more about conformance to the consensus of the whole Church than about some vague universality. Nevertheless the Catholic Church has vast geographic, cultural, and time extension. It is ancient, it is on every continent, it is in nearly every land, and in nearly every culture.

Sounds good. I’m cool with that. Point is they were using the word for what it actually means.

 

[Lees]

Not really, You were trying to say that it was the Roman Catholic Church in particular, NOT just Christianity in general.



You certainly did. See the reminder above.


There were many that came earlier. That's another item about which you don't care to know the actual history.



The timing doesn't change anything. Your theory about everything being Roman Catholic until various groups split off from the RCC in 1054 and afterwards...plus the fact of the Pope issuing an excommunication order against the Patriarch being cited by you as alleged "proof" that the Schism was totally one-sided, is fanciful and, I am guessing, based upon nothing more than you having picked up some misinformation somewhere along the way.

Yes, really. I was clear. The church originated at Pentecost. Not Roman Catholic. Not Protestant. Just the Church. But there came a time when Rome got power over the Church, making it the Roman Catholic Church. Rome was not a denomination of the Church. Rome identified with and as the whole Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

No, you need to reread what I said.

Yes, the splits came later. They were splits from the Roman Church.

Well, you're right in one thing, the timing doesn't matter. The fact that there was a split showed it was a split from the Roman Church. Whether from the Pope or the Patriarch. But the Pope excommunicated first. Showing the Eastern Orthodox recognized the action, especially when the Patriarch responded.

You want to accuse me of 'misinformation' yet you didn't address half of what I said. You just went through and picked a sentence here and there that you thought you could appear right on. Who is one sided and fanciful now?

Lees

 

[Albion]

Yes, really. I was clear. The church originated at Pentecost. Not Roman Catholic. Not Protestant. Just the Church. But there came a time when Rome got power over the Church, making it the Roman Catholic Church.

It did not gain power over the churches of the Eastern half of the old Roman Empire, and that's what led ultimately to the Great Schism of 1054--the refusal of the Eastern churches to accept the pretentions of the bishop of Rome as he went about altering the faith handed down from the Apostles.

Yes, the splits came later.

Some did. Others came much earlier.

They were splits from the Roman Church.

Most were not. The Roman Catholic Church as an entity was not distinguishable from most of the rest of Christianity for most of the first three centuries of Church history, in which time there were all sorts of rival versions of Christianity and splits, some of which were very substantial and still exist.

I gave you the example of the Oriental Orthodox churches which split long before 1054 because of disagreeing with an Ecumenical Council that was and is considered infallible by both the Orthodox Eastern churches and the ones that accepted the authority of the Pope of Rome. Of course, you didn't comment on any of that.

Well, you're right in one thing, the timing doesn't matter. The fact that there was a split showed it was a split from the Roman Church.

?? It does no such thing. The early church included both the Eastern and the Latin churches, the two groups which were later to have the 'falling out' in 1054.

You want to accuse me of 'misinformation' ...

Yes.

Otherwise, my choices would have been to consider you a liar, poorly educated, or slow. I preferred "misinformed."

Your history is quite wrong, the logic is lacking, and you haven't replied with much of a defense of your theory except to repeat yourself. Yet at the same time you refuse to hear of the actual history. Consequently, the possible explanations are not very numerous.

You just went through and picked a sentence here and there that you thought you could appear right on.

I didn't pick a sentence here and there. However, when your starting point, that which you have insisted is key to the rest of your claims, is flatly wrong--and it was--then attending to that matter is what has to come first.

Anyway, we're at an impasse, so let's call it quits.