k2039:
Your problem is just that you didnt follow the thread well enough to understand Enigms's point.
The Catholic being refered to here was the earlier beleivers Act 11vs26.It's just like calling all christians Catholics(the RCC broke away,at a point they were part of the church)

Enigma has no point. When did the Roman catholic church break away from catholic church? Why do you lie?

the first pope predicted the RCC,2peter2:1
Also Saint Paul predicted the RCC in 2Cor11:13-15
Gal2:4
And my own version;
'They(RCC) were with us(Catholics at antioch) but they were against us'. 1K2039 1:1

MacDaddy01:


Enigma has no point. When did the Roman catholic church break away from catholic church? Why do you lie?

So how come the RCC doctrine is different from that laid by Pope Peter 1

k2039:
So how come the RCC doctrine is different from that laid by Pope Peter 1

lol.......evolution. more doctrines were added upon the advent of greater technology and philosophy.

MacDaddy01:
Why are people such idiots?


Then what is the difference in practices of the Roman catholic and the catholic church?


The roman catholics did not break away from any catholic church. They are the same. The lies that you christians spout at times!


The catholic bible is the same as the roman catholic bible. with extra books than the protestants bibles. So what now is the difference between roman catholic and catholic! Damn!

The bible is thesame,what about the doctrine

^^^ Please don't mind him and misinformed others saying Eastern Orthodoxy is the same as Roman Catholicism. And specifically on the Bible, Eastern Orthodox churches have different canons from the canon of Roman Catholicism.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons#Eastern_canons

MacDaddy01:


lol.......evolution. more doctrines were added upon the advent of greater technology and philosophy.

Thats my point,you answered my point,the RCC now was different from the early church(Catholic) with the invention and addition of doctrines that favored His Holiness

@ enigma

Stop dodging my questions.for the second time I will ask you again



.Give me the name of any catholic member who lived before the schism having differant view from this your 'roman catholic church'

Give me quotation from any of the eastern church fathers supporting the current view of the eastern orthodox church.I don't want mere conjectures or any copy and paste write up but rather direct quotation.

What were the differences between the religious beleifs of your 'catholic church' and the roman catholic church

@chukwudi44

What did you do with all the information I gave you previously.

I also previously gave you this link on Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

What did you do with that one?

Even now I'll give you one more bonus: here is one more Eastern Orthodox perspective especially after the 2007 paper in which the Roman Catholic Church said Eastern Orthodox Churches are "defective" and that all others are not even "churches" at all but "ecclessial communities".

http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076

Stop giving links to write ups.I have asked for you to post direct quotations from any of the church fathers.I don't want mere conjectures.

I have given you direct quotations from SS Augustine,john chrysostom,cyprian,ireneaus and a host of others.Kindly give me your own quotation from any of the early church fathers.Is that too much to ask

^^^ It is partly because of your quotes that I referred you to the link: read it and see how Orthodoxen interprete your quotes differently from the way Roman Catholics interprete them.

Let us start from there.

I don't need any link telling me writings after the council of chalcedon or after the east-west schism.Show me writings from the church fathers who lived before the schisms who held any the same view about today's orthodox church about what you called the roman catholic church.

I never told you that today's othordox church shares the same view with th RCC.Even their doctrines are almost identical with exception of the papacy

Enigma: ^^^ Please don't mind him and misinformed others saying Eastern Orthodoxy is the same as Roman Catholicism. And specifically on the Bible, Eastern Orthodox churches have different canons from the canon of Roman Catholicism.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons#Eastern_canons

So the eastern orthodox church is now the catholic church? What noinsense

chukwudi44: I don't need any link telling me writings after the council of chalcedon or after the east-west schism.Show me writings from the church fathers who lived before the schisms who held any the same view about today's orthodox church about what you called the roman catholic church.

I never told you that today's othordox church shares the same view with th RCC.Even their doctrines are almost identical with exception of the papacy

If you will not read those links, I will not indulge you.

First, you have not answered several questions that I put to you on this and on the other two or so threads.

Second, I myself have a ton of questions for your position that I've been holding back e.g.

- Tell us when a bishop of Rome first used the title "pope"

- Tell us which pre-schism ecumenical council was called by a bishop of Rome

- Tell us which pre-schism ecumenical council was held within the partriachate of Rome


If you don't answer them though it doesn't really matter.

chukwudi44:

Your signature will make more sense if it reads 'I remain a proud ROMAN catholic'

MacDaddy01:

So the eastern orthodox church is now the catholic church? What noinsense

^^^ By the post above (and your other posts) you show that you are waaaaay out of your league in respect of the discussion on this thread.

Not belittling you per se --- just showing you a little kindness.

Enigma:

^^^ By the post above (and your other posts) you show that you are waaaaay out of your league in respect of the discussion on this thread.

Not belittling you per se --- just showing you a little kindness.

Were you ever a catholic?

Did you ever study the history of the catholic church?

im.becile

First of all let me help you a little bit: the official title of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Orthodox Catholic Church.

Google it.

Second, remember that by calling me im.becile you are calling your father im.becile.

Enigma:
Second, remember that by calling me im.becile you are calling your father im.becile.

Enigma: First of all let me help you a little bit: the official title of the Eastern Orthodox Church is Orthodox Catholic Church.

Google it.

Second, remember that by calling me im.becile you are calling your father im.becile.

lmao......does that make the orthodox catholic church the original catholic church?


Why did you have to bring parents into this? E dey pain you or you no get popsy?

Ishilove:

Ishi, e get as e be!

Wow...seems i missed the discussion

Damn You Traveling....

@MacDaddy

Did you have to come here to broadcast your foolishness too? Smh

@Chukwudi

It's not fair to not give Enigma's position time of day na. I am reading a history of the Roman Catholic Church written by a Roman Catholic and it's destroying your position. Perhaps, if you looked at the links offered by Enigma, you might be able to educate me and other readers of this thread on any misconceptions we might have.

@enigma

What makes you think I did not read your links.How else did I know there was no direct quote from any of the church fathers.even before you posted that link I had read up all those on wikipedia long before now.

About when the title of pope was first used for the bishop of rome.I had earlier answered you thus

I mentioned earlier in this thread that the pope is first bishop of rome before anything else.The main title of the office is called the bishop of rome.The pope is a latin word called father which was later used to address the office.it was initially used to equally address the other bishops but came to be restricted to the bishop of rome in the 11th century?

Although there is no consensus but I think siricus in the fourth century was the first roman bishop to be accorded that title

Enigma:

If you will not read those links, I will not indulge you.

First, you have not answered several questions that I put to you on this and on the other two or so threads.

Second, I myself have a ton of questions for your position that I've been holding back e.g.

- Tell us when a bishop of Rome first used the title "pope"

- Tell us which pre-schism ecumenical council was called by a bishop of Rome

- Tell us which pre-schism ecumenical council was held within the partriachate of Rome


If you don't answer them though it doesn't really matter.

What has the person who convoked an ecumenical council or the city in which it was held got to do with the topic? Most of the coucils were convoked by the roman emperors but that in no way made them head of the church.

Even after the reformation the church council was held in trent.does that confer any significance to thread.

If the primacy of the roman church was resented by the eastern church there would have voiced it out.Kindly show me a direct quotation from any of the church fathers before the schism espousing the current view of the eastern orthodox church.I could not find such in the link you provided.If you find one kindly paste it here for all

^^^ The first thing is that the 'Apostolic Fathers' and the earliest 'Church Fathers' did not know and neither did they know of any "pope"!

By the way, if Victor was a "pope" in the way the Roman Catholics claim, especially now, how come he was rebuked by Irenaeus - a bishop in Lyons?

The second thing would be what you mean by primacy: as I have told you before the bishops of the other Sees/Partriarchates saw Rome as having a primacy of honour (for various reasons, even including political, with Rome being the capital of the Empire) but they saw all the Sees as equal and Rome was only primus inter pares i.e. first among equals.

It was Rome (and some particular "popes" ) that tried to claim that the primacy was not merely of honour but of jursidction. Now don't forget that it is this aggrandisement of Rome that contributed chiefly to the eventual Great Schism ----- if the Eastern bishops accepted Rome's claim of primacy of jurisdiction why then did the schism occur?

By the way, it is this same claim of Rome and its flawed doctrine of ecclesiology that is a major stumbling block today to full reconciliation not only with Orthodoxy but also with others including the Anglicans etc.

Enigma: ^^^ The first thing is that the 'Apostolic Fathers' and the earliest 'Church Fathers' did not know and neither did they know of any "pope"!

By the way, if Victor was a "pope" in the way the Roman Catholics claim, especially now, how come he was rebuked by Irenaeus - a bishop in Lyons?

The second thing would be what you mean by primacy: as I have told you before the bishops of the other Sees/Partriarchates saw Rome as having a primacy of honour (for various reasons, even including political, with Rome being the capital of the Empire) but they saw all the Sees as equal and Rome was only primus inter pares i.e. first among equals.

It was Rome (and some particular "popes" ) that tried to claim that the primacy was not merely of honour but of jursidction. Now don't forget that it is this aggrandisement of Rome that contributed chiefly to the eventual Great Schism ----- if the Eastern bishops accepted Rome's claim of primacy of jurisdiction why then did the schism occur?

By the way, it is this same claim of Rome and its flawed doctrine of ecclesiology that is a major stumbling block today to full reconciliation not only with Orthodoxy but also with others including the Anglicans etc.

In order words you are not able to present evidence from any of the pre-schism church fathers to support your own theory of the 'catholic' church.All these are just a figment of your imagination.Telling me victor was rebuked by ireneaus,was that the first time it was happening? Did paul not rebuke peter? How many times did ireneaus go to rome to confer wit the pope?

I used to respect you so much on nl but I never knew you could resort to such shameful tactics

NB This was originally an accidental double post but I am now using it to address some specific points in your post.

chukwudi44:

In order words you are not able to present evidence from any of the pre-schism church fathers to support your own theory of the 'catholic' church. All these are just a figment of your imagination.

I address this in the post that follows this one.

chukwudi44: Telling me victor was rebuked by ireneaus,was that the first time it was happening? Did paul not rebuke peter? How many times did ireneaus go to rome to confer wit the pope?

Tell me which Roman Catholic bishop can rebuke the pope today in the same way.

About Peter and Paul: that is part of the point that you are missing! The Bible has no such thing as "pope"; what the Bible expects is that each Christian community would have "bishops"/"elders"/"overseers" ------ note plural and not one head honcho.

Even at the Council of Jerusalem, was there a "pope"? And why was it James who spoke for the Church and not Peter?

chukwudi44: I used to respect you so much on nl but I never knew you could resort to such shameful tactics

First, I have NOT resorted to any shameful tactics.

Second, if I no longer have your respect because I differ from your position on this particular issue, well I can only say "that is life".

chukwudi44:

In order words you are not able to present evidence from any of the pre-schism church fathers to support your own theory of the 'catholic' church.All these are just a figment of your imagination.Telling me victor was rebuked by ireneaus,was that the first time it was happening? Did paul not rebuke peter? How many times did ireneaus go to rome to confer wit the pope?

I used to respect you so much on nl but I never knew you could resort to such shameful tactics

You know very well that the above is nonsense. I have at least twice quoted even Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic Church" and explained what he meant. He like others knew no such thing as "popes" and the monolith that is now the Roman Catholic Church.

Only because repeating something I had posted on two other threads has some advantage if posted here, I repeat the post below that you should be aware of from two threads now.


Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11813883

Read these below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.[17] The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole".[18] "Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) first appears in a letter of St Ignatius written in about 110.[19] In the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catholic Church" is used to distinguish it from other groups that also call themselves the church.

This according to the same Ignatius who coined "the Catholic Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

Note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

Check where Christians were first called "catholics"
ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome#Relationship_with_bishops_of_other_cities

Rome was not the only city that could claim a special role in Christ's Church. Jerusalem had the prestige of being the city of Christ's death and resurrection, and an important church council was held there in the 1st century. Antioch was the place where Jesus' followers were first called "Christians" {7} (as well as "Catholic"[48] and, with Alexandria, was an important early center of Christian thought.

Again, note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

The term Christian Church as a proper noun refers to the whole Christian religious tradition through history. The term does not correctly refer to a particular "Christian church" (a "denomination" or building).

. . . .

In the New Testament, the term ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly" is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers.[2] Traditionally, only orthodox believers are considered part of the true church, but convictions of what is orthodox vary.

The four traditional "notes of the Christian Church" or descriptors of the church, first expressed in the Nicene Creed are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.[

1. Do you still want to say there is no such thing as the catholic Church (small C) i.e. the universal Church?

2. When the Bible was being "compiled" did the catholic Church (deliberate small C) or even the Catholic Church (capital C) consist of just the RCC?

3. Was the Bible "compiled" before or after the Chalcedon that is being trumpeted here?

4. How would you classify the Eastern Orthodox churches?

5. Did the Eastern Orthodox church/es play a role in the "compilation" of the Bible or not?

6. Which See was first established: Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome?





EDIT Please note how I have modified my initial double post above.

[/quote]Tell me which Roman Catholic bishop can rebuke the pope today in the same way.

About Peter and Paul: that is part of the point that you are missing! The Bible has no such thing as "pope"; what the Bible expects is that each Christian community would have "bishops"/"elders"/"overseers" ------ note plural and not one head honcho
[quote]

Mr man the pope is not a tyrant.He is a religious leader.the last time I checked bishops in austria had opposed benedict's choice of bishop and heads did not roll.

About your claim of having multiple bishops and elders.we also had multiple apostles but only one was handed the keys of the kingdom of heaven.only one was asked to feed the sheep.the authourity of the pope stems from the bible and nothing else.Jesus christ created the office.If you have any issues take it up with him

[/quote]Even at the Council of Jerusalem, was there a "pope"? And why was it James who spoke for the Church and not Peter?[quote]

Even at the councils of nicea and chalcedon the pope did not even attend.The principal actors @ the council of nicea were not even bishops but rather priests. Arius and athanasius before he became a bishop

And what authority did the apostle Peter himself claim over other apostles or even over other Churches (granted he knew what Jesus Christ said) unlike what his supposed successors i.e. the Roman "popes" claiming primacy were/are doing.

Also if Peter was first of all Bishop of Antioch and/or Bishop of/in Jerusalem, why is it not his supposed successors in either Antioch or Jerusalem that are the "popes" today?

NB this is without even as yet addressing the issue of the primacy of Peter; and again this is even assuming that Peter ever was 'Bishop of Rome'.