Catholic Church definition of the canonical scriptures.

[NathanH83]

The Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. People who take it out will be judged by God with the judgment that comes to people who remove things from the scripture.

 

[Lees]

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.


Some did. Others came much earlier.


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.


?? 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.


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.


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.

I already said it took several hundred years for Rome to gain power over the Church. The Oriental churches would split at a time when the Pope of Rome and the Roman church was already considered the leading authority. Thus it was a split from the Roman Church. Around the 5th century.

So, by 1054, Rome was most certainly ruling over the Church. And the Eastern Orthodox didn't split in the 5th century from Rome which begs, why not? The great schism of 1054 occurred. How is there a schism.?

It's only a schism if both saw themselves under the same authority. Else it is just an ongoing disagreement between two different parties. An excommunication would mean nothing from either party. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch, or Eastern Pope, retaliated with an excommunication of his own, shows the East already abided to Rome's doctrine of apostolic succession. He was saying, it was he who had the authority to excommunicate. Not the Pope.

When the Eastern Patriarch excommunicated the Roman Pope, what was he excommunicating him from? The Church had become entirely Roman by this time. And it was this that the East split from.

The same would be later played out in the 16th century at the Reformation. There were no Lutheran, or Baptist, or Presbyterian churches at that time. Just priests and members of the Roman Catholic Church who disagreed with Rome. And they probably had these disagreements for years. But Luther triggered the Reformation with his 95 thesis. In turn, he too was excommunicated.

My point being, the Church at the beginning was not Roman Catholic. but over time, it became Roman Catholic as Rome got power over the Church. Rome was not a 'denomination'. It was a political and religious power that was now over the Church.

Lees

 

[Albion]

I already said it took several hundred years for Rome to gain power over the Church. The Oriental churches would split at a time when the Pope of Rome and the Roman church was already considered the leading authority. Thus it was a split from the Roman Church. Around the 5th century.

So, by 1054, Rome was most certainly ruling over the Church.

But Roman Christianity never had power over the whole of Christendom. It was an association of separate bishoprics which occasionally agreed to conferences (councils) intended to resolve any doctrinal disputes. And long before 1054 that unity had been fractured. Also, the Oriental Orthodox, contrary to your view, did not split from Rome but from all the rest of Christianity, much of which was yet to have to deal with claims from the bishop of Rome to literal jurisdiction over all the Christians of the world.

And the Eastern Orthodox didn't split in the 5th century from Rome which begs, why not? The great schism of 1054 occurred. How is there a schism.?

You just identified one of several other splits that took place prior to 1054 and were never resolved.

It's only a schism if both saw themselves under the same authority.

The "authority" was NOT that of a monolithic organization ruled over by a religious monarch.

Rather, Christianity was diversified in administration under various regional bishops, all of whom were seen as successors of the Apostles and united in faith. This is often referred to as "the undivided church." It was the pretentions to universal jurisdiction on the part of the bishop of Rome (along with his doctrinal changes) which provoked the Schism of 1054.

When the Eastern Patriarch excommunicated the Roman Pope, what was he excommunicating him from?

Strictly speaking, it's the sacraments. Of course, that couldn't be enforced, but the point was to mark him as a rebel from the true faith in need of repentance. He was deemed to be heterodox and unfit for his office.

The Church had become entirely Roman by this time.

Obviously not...as we have just been describing it. You may, in your personal view, take the side of the Roman Catholic Church and say that it alone is true Christianity, but the claim that the actual situation was of a worldwide, united church organization headquartered in Rome is obviously incorrect.

And don't forget that all the other parts, all the other members and parishes and bishoprics we've discussed think that they are they orthodox Christians and it's Rome that went astray, broke unity, etc. etc.!

The same would be later played out in the 16th century at the Reformation. There were no Lutheran, or Baptist, or Presbyterian churches at that time. Just priests and members of the Roman Catholic Church who disagreed with Rome.

Well, this is different for the reason you just explained.

All those reformed movements, with the exception of the Church in England, were new and were reforming the Roman Catholic part of worldwide Christianity. For the most part, the reformers had little working familiarity with the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox churches. But those did constitute significant segments of Christianity that were older than the Roman Catholic Church. It's just that they didn't have any presence where Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin lived and worked, so naturally it was the RCC and its particular doctrinal errors that that these men had to contend with.

My point being, the Church at the beginning was not Roman Catholic.

That's right.

but over time, it became Roman Catholic as Rome got power over the Church.

That's wrong.

Rome was not a 'denomination'.

Yes, it was...and is. There's nothing wrong with the term, even if Roman Catholic clergy and publications demand that everyone else use words that imply, wrongly, that all the other Christian churches of the world split off from them in particular, which is untrue. In fact, there isn't another term that would be more accurate.

Meanwhile, the same RCC spokesmen like to use words and terms for Protestant denominations that imply that these aren't even Christian churches!

"Ecclesial communities" is their favorite, as though a Protestant church is at best just someone's unofficial Bible Study group.

 

[Lees]

But Roman Christianity never had power over the whole of Christendom. It was an association of separate bishoprics which occasionally agreed to conferences (councils) intended to resolve any doctrinal disputes. And long before 1054 that unity had been fractured. Also, the Oriental Orthodox, contrary to your view, did not split from Rome but from all the rest of Christianity, much of which was yet to have to deal with claims from the bishop of Rome to literal jurisdiction over all the Christians of the world.



You just identified one of several other splits that took place prior to 1054 and were never resolved.



The "authority" was NOT that of a monolithic organization ruled over by a religious monarch.

Rather, Christianity was diversified in administration under various regional bishops, all of whom were seen as successors of the Apostles and united in faith. This is often referred to as "the undivided church." It was the pretentions to universal jurisdiction on the part of the bishop of Rome (along with his doctrinal changes) which provoked the Schism of 1054.


Strictly speaking, it's the sacraments. Of course, that couldn't be enforced, but the point was to mark him as a rebel from the true faith in need of repentance. He was deemed to be heterodox and unfit for his office.


Obviously not...as we have just been describing it. You may, in your personal view, take the side of the Roman Catholic Church and say that it alone is true Christianity, but the claim that the actual situation was of a worldwide, united church organization headquartered in Rome is obviously incorrect.

And don't forget that all the other parts, all the other members and parishes and bishoprics we've discussed think that they are they orthodox Christians and it's Rome that went astray, broke unity, etc. etc.!


Well, this is different for the reason you just explained.

All those reformed movements, with the exception of the Church in England, were new and were reforming the Roman Catholic part of worldwide Christianity. For the most part, the reformers had little working familiarity with the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox churches. But those did constitute significant segments of Christianity that were older than the Roman Catholic Church. It's just that they didn't have any presence where Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin lived and worked, so naturally it was the RCC and its particular doctrinal errors that that these men had to contend with.


That's right.

That's wrong.

Yes, it was...and is. There's nothing wrong with the term, even if Roman Catholic clergy and publications demand that everyone else use words that imply, wrongly, that all the other Christian churches of the world split off from them in particular, which is untrue. In fact, there isn't another term that would be more accurate.

Meanwhile, the same RCC spokesmen like to use words and terms for Protestant denominations that imply that these aren't even Christian churches!

"Ecclesial communities" is their favorite, as though a Protestant church is at best just someone's unofficial Bible Study group.

It doesn't matter if the Roman Church didn't have power over all the Church, but I believe it did. Rome was the ruling authority over the Church. And, the main reason the Eastern Orthodox churches began bucking the system was the removal of the capital of the Roman empire by Constantine, to Constantinople, also known as the 2nd Rome. She now felt empowered as did the Patriarch, with this religious and political power.

No, by the 5th century Rome was already the authority over the Church. You keep saying these splits were not from Rome, but from the Church. What Church? If they split from the Church of Jesus Christ, then they are no longer Christian. Is that what you're saying?

No. Concerning 1054, my question was, how is there a Schism?

Well, if an excommunication can't be enforced, it is not of any power. In the 5th century, 484, Pope Felix excommunicated Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Roman Church was the authority over the Church. Later the Pope included also many aquainted with Acacius. That would be enforced. Thus who had the power?

Your explanation of the Reformation split is weak. You don't know how much knowledge the Reformers had of the Eastern churches. And it really doesn't matter. The point is it is the same thing. A split from the Roman Church. Just like Englands was also a split from the Roman Church.

I never said I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Christianity. I most certainly don't. In the beginnign she was just a church. She then gained power over the church. She became another denomination due to the various splits from her.

Lees

 

[Albion]

It doesn't matter if the Roman Church didn't have power over all the Church.

In that case, you've just refuted your own claims here and, in fact, your whole thesis.

That said, I realize that most of that theory, including the most recent historical revisions, were nothing more than speculation and guesswork on your part, anyway.

 

[Lees]

In that case, you've just refuted your own claims here and, in fact, your whole thesis.

No, read on.

Lees

 

[Lees]

In that case, you've just refuted your own claims here and, in fact, your whole thesis.

That said, I realize that most of that theory, including the most recent historical revisions, were nothing more than speculation and guesswork on your part, anyway.

As I said, read on. Try and answer the questions.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Albion

See? Your problem has turned and bit you. You focus on one phrase ignoring the rest of post #(104).

Why? Answer: You use it as a chance to bail.

Man up. Answer the questions in post #(104).

Lees

 

[Albion]

@Albion

See? Your problem has turned and bit you. You focus on one phrase ignoring the rest of post #(104).

Why? Answer: You use it as a chance to bail.

Man up. Answer the questions in post #(104).

Lees

I hate to think that insults and dares are what you have to turn to in order to revive a discussion that you've already lost, but I'll answer. Here are the questions you asked:

Well, if an excommunication can't be enforced, it is not of any power...Thus who had the power?

Depending on how one looks at it, both the Pope and the Patriarch had the power OR neither of them did. Of course, it makes no difference to most people if the person excommunicating them cannot actually restrict the target's religious activities.

But that wasn't the issue in 1054. You wrongly pictured the Pope as having excommunicated the Patriarch as though this meant that the head of the only denomination in all of Christianity just kicked the Pope's leading competitor out of that church.

If they split from the Church of Jesus Christ, then they are no longer Christian. Is that what you're saying?

No. That would be a ridiculously uninformed POV for anyone to adopt.

No. Concerning 1054, my question was, how is there a Schism?

The two sides--the Latin part of Christianity on the one hand and the Eastern Roman and Middle Eastern part on the other--mutually denounced each other as deviant and broke fellowship. That's a schism and it's continued until the present.

No, by the 5th century Rome was already the authority over the Church. You keep saying these splits were not from Rome, but from the Church. What Church?

The church as it then existed aside from some earlier and smaller groups.

That means all the territories that answered to the bishop of Rome versus all the territories that followed one or another of the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

From an administrative perspective, that was the church at the time, heretics aside. These are the jurisdictions overseen by the bishops of those five cities.

In 1054, that "unity in diversity" came to an end with the bishop of Rome going his way and the other four going the other way, out of communion with each other. It takes place as a result of what history calls "the Great Schism."

Now you know. Or shall I just say that now you have the answers?

 

[Lees]

I hate to think that insults and dares are what you have to turn to in order to revive a discussion that you've already lost, but I'll answer. Here are the questions you asked:


Depending on how one looks at it, both the Pope and the Patriarch had the power OR neither of them did. Of course, it makes no difference to most people if the person excommunicating them cannot actually restrict the target's religious activities.

But that wasn't the issue in 1054. You wrongly pictured the Pope as having excommunicated the Patriarch as though this meant that the head of the only denomination in all of Christianity just kicked the Pope's leading competitor out of that church.


No. That would be a ridiculously uninformed POV for anyone to adopt.


The two sides--the Latin part of Christianity on the one hand and the Eastern Roman and Middle Eastern part on the other--mutually denounced each other as deviant and broke fellowship. That's a schism and it's continued until the present.


The church as it then existed aside from some earlier and smaller groups.

That means all the territories that answered to the bishop of Rome versus all the territories that followed one or another of the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

From an administrative perspective, that was the church at the time, heretics aside. These are the jurisdictions overseen by the bishops of those five cities.

In 1054, that "unity in diversity" came to an end with the bishop of Rome going his way and the other four going the other way, out of communion with each other. It takes place as a result of what history calls "the Great Schism."

Now you know. Or shall I just say that now you have the answers?

Sometimes dares are necessary to provoke participation to do the right thing. As to insults, they are sort of like 'defamation'. It's not defamation if what you say is true. It's not an insult if what you say is trure. My opinion.

Yes, the Pope in 1054 excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. That the Roman Church doesn't have the power to restrict anyones religious activities outside of the Roman Church is immaterial. It had the power to dictate over those it believed belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ. And as a result were part of the Roman Catholic Church over whom it had now the power.

No, only one had the power to excommunicate from the Roman Church. If you say the Pope had no power to excommunicate the Eastern Bishop because the Patriarch was not part of the Roman Church, then how can the Patriarch attempt to excommunicate the Pope? The very fact that the Patriarch tried to excommunicate the Pope shows he recognized Rome's authority, which he now openly rejected.

Well, you keep saying the split was from the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Roman Church. A point I thought ridiculous also.

No, what you describe is not a schism. A schism occurs among members of one group. Not two. What you describe is a disagreement between two different groups. You may as well rewrite history and call it the 'Great Disagreement of 1054".

No, all the bishops answered to Rome. They may have disagreed, but they answered to Rome.

I brought to your attention that in 5th century, 484, the Pope excommunicated Acacius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. And asked you a question concerning it. Who had the power then? I didn't see a response to that.

This excommunication of Acacius, and the conflict resulting in it for several years ,helped create the problems of 1054. The final outcome was the Pope issuing an ultimatum to the Eastern Bishops to submit and sign it, signifying their submission. Later 200 Eastern Bishops were summoned to Constantinople where they signed it. This ultimatum is known as 'The Formula of Hormisdas'.

In other words, the Eastern Bishops recognized the authority of Rome over the Church.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Sometimes dares are necessary to provoke participation to do the right thing.

Possibly, but behaving childishly most often backfires. Occasionally doing that does irritate the other party enough to prompt a reply, however.

In this case, your argument was so uninformed, so out of step with the historic events and the theological issues involved, that it seemed worthwhile to outline for you in more detail how wrong you are. Congrats, if that was your hope.

 

[Lees]

Possibly, but behaving childishly most often backfires. Occasionally doing that does irritate the other party enough to prompt a reply, however.

In this case, your argument was so uninformed, so out of step with the historic events and the theological issues involved, that it seemed worthwhile to outline for you in more detail how wrong you are. Congrats, if that was your hope.

Behaving childishly? Picking one sentence out of several paragraphs of explanation and only addressing that....is 'childish'. And, deceptive. See my post #(104), (106), and (107). And see your post #(105).

You would only have been irritated to reply if my provoking were true. But, it, your irritation, didn't help you did it. You resort to the same thing in your post #(111). I expressed several things proving the authority of Rome over the Church. Yet you again ignore them.

And, your self proclaimed 'outline of my wrongs', of which I don't remember much, may satisfy you. But then, you are satisfied by choosing what you want, and ignoring the rest. In other words: you make it up.

So, please address my posts #(104) and (110).

Lees