Discussion: Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the only true Christian church?

The most significant event in the history of European Christianity was the conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity. Born in 280, Constantine became one of the four emperors of the empire after the retirement of Diocletian. This scheme soon fell apart until there were only three generals vying for control: Constantine in Gaul, the least populated portion of the empire, while rule in Rome was under the control of Maxentius, and the east under the control of Licinius. In 312, Constantine threw caution to the wind and marched on Maxentius's forces, even though he was vastly outnumbered. The most important battle occurred at Milvian Bridge; he both won the battle and killed his rival, making him emperor of Rome and Gaul and soon emperor of the east as well.

Constantine claimed that his victory was the result of his conversion to Christianity; he, according to one biography, had been instructed to carry the banner of Christianity into battle. Since he won the battle, he decided to become Christian. Even so, he was not baptized until he was dying many decades later.

Constantine, however, had several problems with his new faith. In particular, foundational Christianity was manifestly anti-political. Its founder, Jesus of Nazareth, consistently condemned worldly authority and insisted that the Christian life is a non-worldly, individualistic, non-political life. As a result, the foundational Christian texts are not only anti-Roman (for Judaea was part of the Roman Empire during the life of Jesus of Nazareth), but consistently dismissive of human, worldly authority. If Christianity were going to work as a religion in a state ruled by a monarch that demanded worship and absolute authority, it would have to be changed.

The early Christians had tolerated the emperors and regarded them as a kind of necessary evil. Constantine, as a Christian emperor, though demanded their obedience both temporally and in terms of faith. To this end, he merged the office of emperor with the Christian faith and assumed authority over doctrinal matters. Added to this equation was the divinity or partial divinity normally bestowed on the emperor. Constantine's Christian conversion did not stop him from presenting himself as divine both in the theater of imperial power and on coinages. There's no reason to believe that Constantine did not in fact believe that he was divine, even in spite of his Christianity.

This was a new and unsolvable problem in Christianity. As long as the emperor was a pagan, there was no question of the relationship between the church and the state. The church did its thing and the state did its sinful thing. The presence of Christian imperial authority, however, led to severe conflicts and disruption. The question of the relationship between the church and a Christian government has yet to be resolved in the West.

 

Perhaps the most important task that Constantine undertook was the Council of Nicea which was called largely to arbitrate the conflict between the western church and the Arians and to decide the question of the relationship between imperial power and the church. The Council dealth with more than this controversy, however, and made major doctrinal decisions that were meant to apply to the whole of the Christian world. This council is important as the first attempt to centralize doctrinal authority among Christians.

The Council officially ruled against Arianism, but the movement continued until the emperor Theodosius I officially condemned it and rooted it out in 383 and 384. The basic orthodoxy of Christianity was instantiated in what came to be called the Nicene creed, the basic statement of belief for orthodox Christianity. Constantine accomplished more, however, for the Nicene council also ratified his own power and Christianity would begin the long struggle, lasting to this day, between the anti-political ideas of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christianity that is compromised to allow for human authority and power.


The most important conflict of the fourth century was the doctrinal dispute between the Donatists and Catholics; this created the most significant division in the western church until the sixteenth century and the advent of Protestantism. Donatus was a bishop in North Africa during the persecutions of Diocletian; unlike the rest of the empire, the persecutions in North Africa were relatively mild as the governor only demanded that Christians hand over written copies of the Christian scriptures as a gesture of repudiating their faith. He did not really interfere with Christianity in other ways. Many Christians complied with the law. However, after the persecutions ended, those Christians that had not given up their scriptures called the others traitors and would not allow them back in the church—among these "traitors" were priests. Donatus argued that the sacraments were rendered invalid if they were administered by corrupt priests—Donatus wanted, then, a church of saints rather than a Catholic, or "universal," church.

The North African Donatists were fiercely oppposed by the western church and energetically opposed by Augustine, who was bishop in Hippo in North Africa. The Donatists, however, hung on as a secret church until the Muslims invaded North Africa in the late 600's. The reason Donatism is important, though, is that the movement was revived in the twelfth century in Europe as the Catholic clergy had become desperately corrupt. A new, popular movement revived Donatism and not only criticized corrupt clergy but declared them unworthy to deliver valid sacraments. In this respect, sixteenth century Protestantism in its attacks on the corrupt clergy was the descendant of the the Donatist movement.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM

 

While Basil set the pattern for monasticism, the most important figure in its development was Benedict (480-547), who composed a set of rules, the Benedictine Rule that would become the standard model of monasticism in Europe.

Monasticism until the time of Benedict was largely an eastern and North African affair; the Romans, ever practical, didn't take much interest in removing themselves from the world and took even less interest in torturing themselves. Benedict, however, changed all that. His rule—which, by the way, he largely copied from another source—stressed that the life of the monk should at least be tolerable. While the monk did constant spiritual and physical world, he would also get enough to eat, a little bit of wine, and a good night's rest. Eastern monasticism on the other hand imposed severe depredations on its members—fasting, lack of sleep, and other unpleasant privations. Benedict's innovations that softened the severity of monasticism made it a more practical life-choice. One could remove oneself from the world and dedicate every hour of every day to the service of God and the disciplining of the self without having to suffer severely.

The eastern monasteries were composed of more or less independent monks; Benedict's rule, however, specified that the community would be under the rule of one individual, the abbot. That abbot would govern all aspects of the community and the individual members would obey the abbot in everything.

The Benedictine rule introduced into Western culture the idea of regulated time. For Benedict believed that every waking minute should be consumed by labor either physical and spiritual. The monastic community was regulated by an uncompromising daily schedule. At a certain time of the day, one would attend mass. At another time, one would work in the garden, and so on. Our entire orientation towards time in European and European-derived cultures owes its origins to Benedict's regulation of time.

The Benedictine monasteries were perhaps the most important cultural practice of the early Middle Ages. They were the centers of learning in Europe well into the eleventh century and their missionary work was the only reason why Christianity spread throughout Europe. They were also the only line of transmission of classical culture into European medieval culture; had the Benedictine monasteries not formed it would have been highly likely that the heritage of the classical world would have been lost in the Middle Ages.


Leo I Our history of the early Roman church appropriately ends with Pope Leo I (ruled 440-461), who is also known as Leo the Great. He was really the first major ecclesiastic and politician to recognize not only the reality of the Roman collapse but its consequences for world being born. In the face of a dying world and another world struggling to be born, he recast the office of the bishop of Rome and its political relationship to other political groups.

He realized that he needed to deal with more than the Emperor of Rome, who controlled very little territory, and negotiated with both the Huns and the Vandals to secure some measure of independence and political control. He recognized, though, that the loss of imperial power meant the diffusion of the church's unified influence over the Christian world. The church had to somehow replace the emperors as a unifying force—the logical candidate was, naturally, the pope or bishop of Rome.

We're accustomed of thinking of the pope as the supreme head of the church, but this was only a slow development. The pope, or bishop of Rome, occupied a position of respect in the church hierarchy but was by no means pre-eminent among Christian bishops through the Roman period. Even in the Middle Ages, the pope did not occupy this pre-eminent position until the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Leo I, however, believed that the pope should somehow become both a political and doctrinal unifying force. Should the empire fall, the leadership of the West, according to Leo, should pass to the pope.

He based his argument for the supremacy of the bishop of Rome on an old, semi-developed doctrine called the Petrine Succession. In the Gospel of Matthew 16.15-19, Jesus of Nazareth lays his hands on Peter and gives him the "keys to the kingdom." Since Peter became the first bishop of Rome, the bishops of Rome were the inheritors of Peter's mission, including those keys to the kingdom. Leo interpreted the Petrine Succession as instituting the bishopric of Rome as the rock or center of Christianity; the bishop of Rome, in Leo's version of the Petrine Succession, was the primate or "first" of the church in all matters of doctrine and governance.

The effects of this decision were momentous. The western church had long before that accepted the Petrine Succession so they easily adopted Leo's claim that the Petrine Succession implied that the bishop of Rome was the primate of the church. The eastern churches, however, did not have a long history of accepting the Petrine succession—this one drive one more wedge between the two churches. Leo's doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome also drove the engine of the history of the early medieval church which in large measure can be read as an attempt to consolidate and legitmate the power of the pope.

 

Where did I ever say that?

Trust me, Martin, if I took you seriously enough to where I wanted to kick your ass, you'd know it. Aside from not being worth my time, you're not worth the price of a plane ticket to New York. So keep on pecking away safely and happily at the keyboard with your big, bad, insulting self if that's what gets you off. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

I'm not the one getting all worked up here. Physician, heal thyself.

 

According to the Book you just wrote, the Catholic Church did not exist until Constantine's "conversion" in the early 4th century. Preceding that you sait the Fathers of the Church, the guys I have been quoting, were not Christian leaders, but Catholic leaders. No problem. The terms are synonomous. Except for the fact that most of them lived and wrote before Constantine. Some wrote as early as AD 80. Some wrote prior to Revalation which was written in 109. So how could these be Catholic leaders if the Catholic Church did not exist before 316?

As to the doctrine of Petrine succession you say invented by Leo. If Leo invented it there should be no mention of it in previous Catholic literature. Let's see if that holds water.

St. Ireaneus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertillian
"This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labranith
"Victor was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

So here are three of many refrences to Petrine succession all just two generations removed from the Apostolic Age.

It follows logically that Leo's tomb would have inscribed
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Think logically it doesn't make sense for Christ to appoint the Apostles as leaders and the Apostles to just die and not appoint succesors and leave the Church leaderless.

As to the Donatists, that schism ended in 411 and resulted in the 10 Donatist Bishops returning to Commnion with Rome. It did not continue to exist as a secret church. Donatus himself met with the Pope and councils of Bishops several times during the schism. A great explanation is found here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm

 

whew, i am glad i am safe to speak my mind and not worry about you beating me up. thanks.

it is hard not to sound insulting when you are discussing how you believe in spirits and ghosts. you do believe in magical spirits and ghosts, right?

and by the way, have a nice passover everyone.

 

I don't believe in violence unless it's absolutely necessary. It generally doesn't solve anything.

I believe in GOD, Martin. Call that what you will.

And you have a nice Passover as well. :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

Violence has its place and can solve many problems. Like if you were being mugged by a thug, or restraining someone intent to to great harm to others, or making your wife horny.

But in debates, violence's threat or use is an admission of retreat or defeat.

 

Not so much an admission of retreat or defeat, but more so a clear sign that you have run out of thought provoking comments and have to result to the lowest form of communication.

 

the difference is I can spell NFL at least. You may wanna learn how to spell catholicism before claiming to know so much about it.

the fact you went to a catholic school plus practiced it has absolutely no bearing on your ignorance of catholicism. Actually, it makes it look even worse you're so uninformed, jaded and misguided. You should keep quiet and simply educate yourself first.

By the way I got the first 5 picks right. I even had Jason Campbell going to the Skins with the 25th pick.

:hihi: :hihi: