Constantine and the RCC

[Fidei Defensor]

2 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Your history is a bit off there. As for reading Eusebius The History of the Church.... there's ten books. Which last paragraph?

The very last chapter of the last book of Eusebius (Penguin).

What history do you dispute?

I am saying Constantine created Byzantine Church (prior to him, the Church was persecuted). This Byzantine Church became Eastern Orthodoxy, and out of that church came Roman Catholicism (thanks to that the First Among Equals called the Bishop of Rome became the Pope), and the schism was complete in 1054 A.D.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

6 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The very last chapter of the last book of Eusebius (Penguin).

What history do you dispute?

I am saying Constantine created Byzantine Church (prior to him, the Church was persecuted). This Byzantine Church became Eastern Orthodoxy, and out of that church came Roman Catholicism (thanks to that the First Among Equals called the Bishop of Rome became the Pope), and the schism was complete in 1054 A.D.

I'll give you this, you are the first person I've heard say that Constantine created the Orthodox Church and than came the Roman Catholic Church. I would love to hear how you came to this conclusion  

I just read the last Chapter of Book X and it does t say anything about starting the Byzantine Church.

Chapter 9. The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.

this is what I have for the last chapter of Book X

 

[Fidei Defensor]

1 minute ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I'll give you this, you are the first person I've heard say that Constantine created the Orthodox Church and than came the Roman Catholic Church. I would love to hear how you came to this conclusion  

I just read the last Chapter of Book X and it does t say anything about starting the Byzantine Church.

Chapter 9. The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.

this is what I have for the last chapter of Book X

 

I am glad to be a first! Lol I learned this from "The Open Church" (James H Lutz), from my studies of the Crusades, my studies of Byzantium, and comparing these to the Scriptures and Early Church (Acts 2 and 4). The Church prior to Constantine was one of suffering, persecution, and battling heresies. Constantine in the last chapter in my copy of Eusebius takes the church, puts it back into format that is very different than house churches of Acts, "But I will say this: after completed the great building I have described, he finished it with thrones high up, to accord with dignity of the prelates (bishops, priests), and also with benches arranged conveniently throughout. In addition to all this, he placed in the middle the Holy of Holies -the altar- excluding, the general public from this part too by surrounding it with wooden trellis..," (The History of the Church, Eusebius, Penguin Classics, pg 315).

My theory of church is this, it started as Christ's Church (Church of Acts and New Testament), became Apostolic Churches (many hersies like Originism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, and other strange doctrines) then it became the Imperial Church (Byzantine Church, Eastern Orthodoxy) to this day the Orthodox Church has always had an imperial ruler, it believe a sovereign emperor or king or tsar ruled the church and kingdom, while Roman Catholicism broke off in 1054 A.D. (in what I believe was reformation) where Bishop of Rome (Pope) wanted to have Church separate from Empire, and that it have its own leaders again. Then from Roman Church came Protestant Reformation where they went back to Sources, The Scriptures, and tried to go back to the Church of New Testament (Acts 2-5, chapters not verses). Its full circle: church has its own leaders and Scriptures (New Testament, Church of ACTS), church add to scriptures and has its own leaders (Apostolic Fathers, 100 A.D. to 323 A.D.), church is controlled by outside leader and has more traditions added to it (Byzantine, Eastern Orthodoxy), church goes back to having its own ecclesia leaders (Catholicism) but still has man made traditions (Mark 7:7) mixed with Scripture, and finally the church has its own leaders again and scriptures with most of traditions of men removed (Protestantism), but the Reforms aren't over, the building is what is left, the Constantine system isn't yet completely removed from church, there are still traditions of men at work (Mark 7:7, Colossians 2:23).

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

26 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

But I will say this: after completed the great building I have described, he finished it with thrones high up, to accord with dignity of the prelates (bishops, priests), and also with benches arranged conveniently throughout. In addition to all this, he placed in the middle the Holy of Holies -the altar- excluding, the general public from this part too by surrounding it with wooden trellis..," (The History of the Church, Eusebius, Penguin Classics, pg 315).

I checked two different sites that have Eusibius's works and both Book X were the same and neither matches what your sources are saying. So I'm at a loss on this. 

As for the term Roman Catholic Church, that term is an Anglican term given to Catholics during the reformation. It was meant to be a derogatory term, the Anglicans (at least some branches of Anglicans) considered themselves and called themselves Catholics. Some still do today.

There has always been one universal (catholic) Church. You draw distinctions based on a time line. So are you saying that the house Church stoped existing after 100AD and the persecuted Church stopped existing after 323? Where did these Churches go, what happened to all the believers ?

House Churches stopped being in houses because the congregations became too large and they needed larger gathering places. They didn't stop being what they were because the walls and room changed. Same with a persecuted Church that's no longer being persecuted. It's still the same Church, it's the mortality rate that changed. Not the Church. 

Just a quick bow on this, the first time the Church was called anything was by Irenaus in his letter to the smyrneans. I'm paraphrasing a bit but he said where the bishops were is were the catholic Church is. As I was browsing some of the letters of Constantine that were recorded in Eusebiuss Church History, again the church was referred to as the Catholic Church. Constantine also was requesting bishops that were writing him with disputes, to go to Rome to have the issues settled there, with the bishop of Rome. 

Here are the links to the two sources I checked:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250110.htm

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xvi.ix.html

Im off to bed, Cheers and God Bless

 

[Fidei Defensor]

1 minute ago, Judas Machabeus said:

I checked two different sites that have Eusibius's works and both Book X were the same and neither matches what your sources are saying. So I'm at a loss on this. 

As for the term Roman Catholic Church, that term is an Anglican term given to Catholics during the reformation. It was meant to be a derogatory term, the Anglicans (at least some branches of Anglicans) considered themselves and called themselves Catholics. Some still do today.

There has always been one universal (catholic) Church. You draw distinctions based on a time line. So are you saying that the house Church stoped existing after 100AD and the persecuted Church stopped existing after 323? Where did these Churches go, what happened to all the believers ?

House Churches stopped being in houses because the congregations became too large and they needed larger gathering places. They didn't stop being what they were because the walls and room changed. Same with a persecuted Church that's no longer being persecuted. It's still the same Church, it's the mortality rate that changed. Not the Church. 

Just a quick bow on this, the first time the Church was called anything was by Irenaus in his letter to the smyrneans. I'm paraphrasing a bit but he said where the bishops were is were the catholic Church is. As I was browsing some of the letters of Constantine that were recorded in Eusebiuss Church History, again the church was referred to as the Catholic Church. Constantine also was requesting bishops that were writing him with disputes, to go to Rome to have the issues settled there, with the bishop of Rome. 

Here are the links to the two sources I checked:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250110.htm

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xvi.ix.html

Im off to bed, Cheers and God Bless

 

I have my copy of Eusebius, I will find title of chapter and share it with you presently.

I only use Roman Catholic to denote those who believe in Papacy, and the Church of Rome. I never knew it was derogatory description by Protestants, although the Catholics did same to Baptists, meaning "rebaptizers" (The Reformation by Diamand McCulloch and Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelly 4 ed.). I thought Roman Catholic meant those who follow the Roman Rite (Latin Rite), oppose to Charismatic Catholic, Reformed Catholic, and anti-Papist Catholic. In short, the Roman in Roman Catholic always meant to me that Roman Catholics consider their leadership is in Rome.

I don't just use Catholic because it means Universal Church which is all Christians in the Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Apostle's Credos.

Actually church was used first by Jesus, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (ἐκκλησίαν. ekklēsian Greek, ecclesia Latin, Church English) and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matthew 16:18). The rock Jesus is talking about is Peter's revelation, "You are messiah, Son of Living God," (Matthew 16:16) and Jesus is referred to the rock (Psalm 18:2, Matthew 7:24-27, stumbling stone (1 Peter 2:8, 1 Corinthians 1:23-24), and corner stone (Ephesians 2:20).
 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

I have my copy of Eusebius, I will find title of chapter and share it with you presently.

I only use Roman Catholic to denote those who believe in Papacy, and the Church of Rome. I never knew it was derogatory description by Protestants, although the Catholics did same to Baptists, meaning "rebaptizers" (The Reformation by Diamand McCulloch and Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelly 4 ed.). I thought Roman Catholic meant those who follow the Roman Rite (Latin Rite), oppose to Charismatic Catholic, Reformed Catholic, and anti-Papist Catholic. In short, the Roman in Roman Catholic always meant to me that Roman Catholics consider their leadership is in Rome.

I don't just use Catholic because it means Universal Church which is all Christians in the Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Apostle's Credos.

Actually church was used first by Jesus, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (ἐκκλησίαν. ekklēsian Greek, ecclesia Latin, Church English) and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matthew 16:18). The rock Jesus is talking about is Peter's revelation, "You are messiah, Son of Living God," (Matthew 16:16) and Jesus is referred to the rock (Psalm 18:2, Matthew 7:24-27, stumbling stone (1 Peter 2:8, 1 Corinthians 1:23-24), and corner stone (Ephesians 2:20).
 

Almost made it to bed lol, I did one final check in some of the other threads and saw the notification come up.  

Roman Catholic started out as being derogatory, it's not now. It's exactly how you take it as meaning. It's a term used for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. They general have it on their Church signs "Roman Catholic Church".  The point I was trying to make was that the Roman Catholic Church has always been the Catholic Church. It's the Church the Apsoltes built and ordained bishops and preysbters for. There are 23 Churches that make up the Catholic Church. The Roman (Latin Rite) Church is just one of 23. 

The way you were saying it came across to me anyways like it was a brand new Church you were talking about. 

Lol k now for real I have to go to bed. Cheers

 

[Fidei Defensor]

39 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Almost made it to bed lol, I did one final check in some of the other threads and saw the notification come up.  

Roman Catholic started out as being derogatory, it's not now. It's exactly how you take it as meaning. It's a term used for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. They general have it on their Church signs "Roman Catholic Church".  The point I was trying to make was that the Roman Catholic Church has always been the Catholic Church. It's the Church the Apsoltes built and ordained bishops and preysbters for. There are 23 Churches that make up the Catholic Church. The Roman (Latin Rite) Church is just one of 23. 

The way you were saying it came across to me anyways like it was a brand new Church you were talking about. 

Lol k now for real I have to go to bed. Cheers

 

New since 1054 A.D. lol, so its lets see the Roman Catholic Church as we recognize it today is 963yrs old (this date is if you consider how Roman Church operates since Middle Ages). Its older when you consider it was one with Eastern Church for 954yrs which comes out to about 1,694yrs, but if you want to say Roman Church existed in Eastern Church it really began 1,917yrs with Apostolic Fathers (including Ireneaus, Antony of Egypt, Nicholas, and etc).

Here is break down

Roman Catholic Church's Age According to Its Unique Rite, Papacy, and Etc: 963yrs

Roman Catholic Church's Age If you Consider It's Time As One with Eastern Orthodoxy: 1,694yrs

Roman Catholic Churches' Ages If you Claim it Began at Apostolic Fathers: 1,917yrs

Roman Catholic Churches' Age According To Primacy: 2017yrs

I personally choose the first date of 963yrs, because I don't believe the unique Roman Rite was distinctly Roman and what Catholicism has been known for since Early Middle Ages, at least since the Fall of Western Roma. I don't think its Roman Catholic until schism of 1054 A.D. with Eastern Orthodoxy, because Roman Catholicism was recognized as separate church until then, and the model I am using is Protestanism, it wasn't considered a separate church until it was labeled by Roman Catholic and schism was completed. I.e. a church and its unique rite doesn't exist until it is recognize, in same way Anglican or Church of England didn't exist until Henry VIII broke from Rome and made himself head of the church (St. Thomas Beckett's worst nightmare, and what he tried to prevent with Henry II of England).

I believe Roman Church was reform of Eastern Church, take the filoque, where Roman Church added "The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father: and the Son," to Nicene Creed. The Romans were right according to Scriptures, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--He will testify about M," (John 15:26) and "Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:21-22). The next reform was church that came out the Roman Catholic Church, The Protestant Church which got back to sources, the Scriptures. Then another reform came, get back to the Holy Spirit power with Pentecostals and Charismatics. Now there remains one reform left to get back to Church of New Testament, in essence it has been process of getting back to first primacy, the original church as seen in ACTs and New Testament.

Church of Christ and His Apostles 30-100 A.D. (Including Pentecost)

Church of the Apostolic Fathers 100-333 A.D.

Church of the Byzantines and Eastern Orthodox 354 A.D to 1054 A.D., to present

Church of the Roman Rite (Catholicism) 1054-1640 A.D., to present

Church of the Protestants 1648-2017 A.D. (Began in 1517 A.D. with Luther, but 1648 was the official sealing of it)

Church of the Charismata 1960-to present

Church of the Last Days Before Return of Christ 2000-circa. 2021 and 2022

The Church went wayward from Apostolic Fathers through Byzantines/Eastern Orthodox, then starting heading back through Roman Catholicism but stalled until The Reformation, then it reformed further with Charismatic Movement infusing Spirit back into the Church. The goal now is the reform will take the Church back to Church of Christ and Apostles again, meaning the church will have come complete full circle.

By the way I am enjoying this conversation.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Fidei Defensor

[Spock]

I'm enjoying reading this discussion. Great job you two- Judas and Fidei.  I "liked" each of your posts because you guys are discussing with a peaceful tone, as it should be. Thank you for that. (Clap clap)

Encore! 

Spock

PS Im expecting Shiloh to chime in soon to give his thoughts on your research Fidei, so get ready. He is a bulldog!

 

Edited April 30, 2017 by Spock

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

5 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

it wasn't considered a separate church until it was labeled by Roman Catholic and schism was completed.

I disagree but if this is how you judge the Roman Churches exaistence than how can you say:

5 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

take the filoque, where Roman Church added "The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father: and the Son," to Nicene Creed

If the Roman Church didn't exsist until 1054 than how did the Roman Church add the Filioque clause which eventually led to the split?

the other part of the split was the Eastern Church finally rejecting Romes authority. Before the Filioque clause being added, for the most part there was harmony in the church. So how can the Orthodox Church reject something from a Church that didn't exsist until 1054. All the Councils that were called relied on the Bishop of Rome to ratify otherwise it was not considered. This might be a point of disagreement from Protestants, but as far as I know it's not denied by the Orthodox. Before the final schism of 1054 the pope was viewed as first among equals (in relation to the patriarchs). Than there's the Church's Fathers that write extensive about the Catholic Church. There has always been different rites within the Church, there is a byzatine Catholic Church. They are the ones that returned to the Church before the final split. 

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 hours ago, Spock said:

I'm enjoying reading this discussion. Great job you two- Judas and Fidei.  I "liked" each of your posts because you guys are discussing with a peaceful tone, as it should be. Thank you for that. (Clap clap)

Encore! 

Spock

PS Im expecting Shiloh to chime in soon to give his thoughts on your research Fidei, so get ready. He is a bulldog!

 

I'm enjoying it very much as well. I think it was 4 am before I finally called it a night.