Why is the book of Romans refer to more than one church in Rome?
Why is the book of Romans refer to more than one church in Rome?
I would assume because there were more than one church (think, parishes) in Rome.
Well I suppose that’s a thought but the idea of the word parish isn’t on the seen for at least the next 1100 years, and it refers to a diocese. The first diocese wasn’t until Constantine sought to organize the church and he divided the groups into 4 or maybe 5 diocese, but that’s still a few centuries of separation. So there must be another reason. Thank for you thoughts, if you or someone else has more to offer, I would appreciate it. gtb
Where is the references for what you claim above?
I see the rouse here, and hopefully no one bites. Your paragraph makes a lot of bold claims but also has no merit to it since it lacks any references or citations to actual solid sources (wiki-pedia doesn’t count).
What claim in particular?
I see the rouse here,
Ok, tell me sir, what else do you see?
and hopefully no one bites.
So I post a thought, in forum for an exchange of ideas, and you would have it, that no one replies to me?
If this is the norm, what kind of place is this, sir?
Your paragraph makes a lot of bold claims
Ok, sir, it was one claim, and now you say multiple claims. Can you please identify what bold claims I have made?
I was under the impression I was posting fairly common knowledge, perhaps I over-estimated the audience, if so, I am sorry.
but also has no merit to it since it lacks any references or citations to actual solid sources (wiki-pedia doesn’t count)
Well at least we agree on WIKIPEDIA, I suppose that’s a start.
If you would sir, attempt to address me more charitably and you will find me to do the same, thank you in advance.
Now for a citation or two?
How about for parish:
par·ish [par-ish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an ecclesiastical district having its own church and member of the clergy.
2. a local church with its field of activity.
3. (in Louisiana) a county.
4. the people of an ecclesiastical or civil parish.
5. Curling. house (def. 20).
—Idiom6. on the parish, British. a. receiving charity from local authorities.
b. Informal. meagerly or inadequately supplied.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME, var. of parosshe < MF paroisse < LL parochia, alter. of paroecia < LGk paroikía, deriv. of Gk pároikos neighbor, (in Christian usage) sojourner (see paroicous); see -ia]
As for diocese:
The etomology of the word is of similar origin. As for the earliest form of a diocese, I also thougth this was common knowledge. Perhaps you are not aware of Constantine dividing up the church into 4 or 5 territories. He modeled it after the existing government.
The History of the Church; vol.,1., J.A. Wylie
Well thank you for your time, let’s try this again, thank you sir.
Rome was a big place and there were presumably multiple bishops there. Likewise, it bears pointing out that St. Paul was writing before St. Peter had gone there and had been martyred.
The Roman Church became pre-eminent when the Petrine ministry began to reside there.
The words parish and diocese should not be used as a reference to a church because those words cannot be found in the Bible.
If the word parish did not appear for at least 1100 years, then the idea of an entity similar to a parish is impossible.
By the way plants did not exist during the Paleozoic era because there was no word “plant”.
No offense but I was interested in a serious reply.
Thanks for the non-charitable mocking, sir or madame.
peace be with you
I have received more Catholic charitable reponses on the Protestant boards by both Protestants and Catholics, than what has been offered here.
I don’t understand why I have to beg for charity from those who profess it so loudly when the shoe is on the other foot.
But in fairness maybe those that are charitable are just unfamiliar or learned in the area I am inquirying about.
peace be with you
You are correct! I tried to delete it after I posted with the justification that it was a just smart *** comment but it did not work out.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you picked a source that was less transparently anti-Catholic. From the referenced book:
"The men who handed in this protest [the Protestant Reformation] did not wish to create a mere void. If they disowned the creed and threw off the yoke of Rome, it was that they might plant a purer faith and restore the government of a higher Law.
They replaced the authority of the Infallibility with the authority of the Word of God.
The long and dismal obscuration of centuries they dispelled, that the twin stars of liberty and knowledge might shine forth, and that, conscience being unbound, the intellect might awake from its deep somnolency, and human society, renewing its youth,
might, after its halt of a thousand years, resume its march towards its high goal."
-from "The History of Protestantism"
by J. A. Wylie
If you accept as “common knowledge” the above distortions, we have got a long way to go before we can have a reasonable conversation.
More on Wylie.
Here’s an endorsement of his book from one of the most notorious anti-Catholics of our time:
“Wylie’s ‘The History of Protestantism’ is the best history extant. I welcome its republishing. Read it. Study it. Circulate it. And by so doing you will help to dispel the dark cloud
of priestly superstition, popish idolatry and papal tyranny
encircling our land.”
"Nuff said. :rolleyes:
Well thank you I appreciate you taking time to let me know, I am sorry if I came across a bit strong. By his mercy and grace may we grow in His love and compassion, gtb
Rome was a huge metropolitan area, I have found churches in plurality within the text of the Book itself.
Do you have any further thoughts?
grace and peace to you, gtb
Well even without Wylie there is evidence that the first diocese wasestablished with Constantine I. Wylie was the one I knew off the top of my head. I would appreciate you refer to the material as Protestant material. The very Idea of Protestant is to Protest Roman Catholicism, so that goes with the inclusion of the term Protestant. I do not relagate your material to Anti-Protestant or Pro-Semi-pelegian or anything with such pejorative language as you choose to use. We can both be charitable to each other without the addition of derogatory terms. If disagree with the material cited, by all means tell me so, but refrain from the imflammatory comments, please. The sword cuts both ways would you not agree?
I understand that some Protestants seem to be very doting to Catholicism, I agree. But many as you attest affirm a stern disagreement as I may have indicated, but I myself have been gracious and upright with my comments on this forum. I haven’t posted much, just read the few remarks I have made and let me konw if I am not charitable, please.
By his grace,
Not that I am endorsing Ian Paisley here, but I find your incendiary comments and expressions are just as loving as anyone of these that you slight with your venacular.
Incitant comments do nothing to exchange God’s love and his charity to our fellow man. I know you have not yet had the chance to read my previous post, so I understand.
By his wonderful mercy and gracious favour, gtb
Perhaps you can offer your insight to this conversation in regards to the OP without attacking me?
I guess I have a deeper understanding of what Catholics go through on Protestant boards…
Thank you again for your gracious reply to me, gtb
You are expected to avoid baseless assertions of prejudice,a nd to cite your sources.
This is a Catholic Forum for answering Catholic questions, not a venue for you to pander corrupted representations of history as if they are accurate, and not cite your sources in doing so.
Most of us here at CAF have studied the history of the Church, and we will not fall for that pungently scented manure.
Yes, let’s try this again. Constantine had no authority to “divide up the church”. If he made any divisions, they were secular and political. We can see that parishes and diocese already existed because each of the letters in the book of Revelaiton is addressed to one.
The explanation put forth by many scholars is simply that there was more than one gathering or assembly of Christians in Rome. Given the fact that persecution was occurring and that Rome was a large city, with a large number of believers, it seems reasonable to conclude that the believers wouldn’t try to gather in one place at one time.
Other cities with smaller populations of believers or less persecution might be the host of only one Christian assembly hence the reference to one church rather than churches.
I’d think that the suggestion of any other reason for separation among the believers in Rome would be an anachronism.
Hope this helps.