Modern Roman Catholicism a 12-13th century development?

Michael P wrote on another thread,

Someone else:
Quote:
Catholics have the fullness of history to witness to the Church. Catholics can be called many things, but “Johnny come lately” is not one of them.

Michael P:
“But I certianly don’t see it that way. As you probebly already assumed I, along with all other Evangelicals who study history, see the modern Roman Catholic Church as a “Jonnie come lately.” Namely in the 12-13 centuries. But I think that this is a different subject.”

Michael,

What evidence do you have to support this claim? We Catholics share many of the same beliefs held by the Eastern Orthodox, are they a 12-13th century “Johnny come lately,” too?

Any one else want to address this?

Peace

[quote=dennisknapp]Michael P wrote on another thread,

Someone else:
Quote:
Catholics have the fullness of history to witness to the Church. Catholics can be called many things, but “Johnny come lately” is not one of them.

Michael P:
“But I certianly don’t see it that way. As you probebly already assumed I, along with all other Evangelicals who study history, see the modern Roman Catholic Church as a “Jonnie come lately.” Namely in the 12-13 centuries. But I think that this is a different subject.”

Michael,
What evidence do you have to support this claim? We Catholics share many of the same beliefs held by the Eastern Orthodox, are they a 12-13th century “Johnny come lately,” too?
Any one else want to address this? Peace
[/quote]

The Roman Church separated from the Eastern Orthodox for one of a number of reasons, the main one being that the Eastern Orthodox completely denied the idea of papal supremacy based on both Paul and Peters own testimonies and govenance of local bodies of Christians. They did however retain some of the later practices that were not part of the original early church, but according to history they are closer in apostolic tradition than the Catholic church.

Don’t come down on me, just doing my homework.

[quote=Ruth101]The Roman Church separated from the Eastern Orthodox for one of a number of reasons, the main one being that the Eastern Orthodox completely denied the idea of papal supremacy based on both Paul and Peters own testimonies and govenance of local bodies of Christians. They did however retain some of the later practices that were not part of the original early church, but according to history they are closer in apostolic tradition than the Catholic church.

Don’t come down on me, just doing my homework.
[/quote]

Then you got an “F” on this part of it…
The Eastern church separated from the West in 1054AD. and it was because the stupid crusaders sacked Byzantium… Someone sure twisted your history…even A&E doesn’t agree with you.
I suggest that you get your money back from the preacher who sold you that info… because it’s DEAD WRONG.
Pax vobiscum,

Try reading Just Martyr’s letter to the emperor of Rome in 155.

I, along with all other Evangelicals who study history . . .

:rotfl: I’m really surprised at MichaelP. He’s usually a LOT better than that. Even the poisonous Edward Gibbon knew better.

Part of the reason that I am Catholic today is that as a student of history at a first-tier secular university, I was struck by the undeniable reality that the Catholic Church has been in business, uninterrupted (for better or for worse), from the Annunciation to the present. The history of the Church IS the history of the West.
As for Ruth’s fanciful history about the Great Schism: The magic combination of caesaropapism and persistent Arianism in the East were the deep, ongoing, underlying reasons.

Hello all:

Non-Catholics have to attack today’s Catholic Church because she claims to be the Church Jesus founded: if she is, then their sects indeed must be “Johnny-come-latelies”.

A claim, however, is one thing, but proving it is another. In my experience Evangelicals usually say the Catholic Church started with Constantine, not as late as the 12-13 the centuries. They’re always vague, however: I don’t know whether this proceeds from their general Protestant ignorance of history or from some unconscious wish to give themselves some wiggle room. Whenever they think this apostasy happened, however, they don’t dare delve too deeply or they will find Catholic distinctives apparent well before that time, starting with the earliest Fathers.

To casual observers the Eastern Orthodox may seem to have a better case. They come from the East, where Christianity originated. Most observers don’t know anything about Eastern non-Byzantine Christians, viz., the Oriental Orthodox or the Assyrian Church of the East, so they assume the Byzantine EO’s are the earliest or even the only Eastern claimants. Also, the EO churches have an archaic appearance and they do claim to be the continuation of the early Church. None of these people, however, neither the casual Western observers nor the separated Eastern Christians themselves, have a theory of doctrinal development, and none of them dares to grapple with Catholic theology or the first-millenium evidence in both East and West for the Roman Primacy. It bears repeating also that none of these people seem to manifest the horror of schism that marked the early Christians: in this such people show they are comfortable with schism and vagueness of teaching. One easily sees too how their own ecclesial communities in their ethnicity or other particularism are far from “catholic”.

Who is it that still acts like the (Catholic) Church of the first millenium? Clearly it is the Catholic Church presided over by Rome, that miraculous icon of universal Christianity (per Vladimir. Soloviev). It is Rome that effects the unity of the sees in union with her, it is Rome that seeks to end schism with those who are not, it is Rome that enables the Catholic Church to continue to teach authoritatively, either in the ordinary day-to-day teaching of her bishops or in their extraordinary teaching in ecumenical councils or through the extraordinary teaching of their head, the Bishop of Rome. It is only the Catholic Church that teaches not like the Scribes and Pharisees, but with the authority of Christ. Thus, although other Christian communities at least imperfectly do manifest some of the marks of Christ’s Church, these marks are preeminently visible in the Catholic Church. The others claim this or that, but any impartial observer sees that they all really can be understood only with regard to Rome and her Catholic teaching through history. Otherwise even their own teachings are not understandable. Rome is obviously the center.

Regards,
Joannes

[quote=dennisknapp]Michael P wrote on another thread,

Someone else:
Quote:
Catholics have the fullness of history to witness to the Church. Catholics can be called many things, but “Johnny come lately” is not one of them.

Michael P:
“But I certianly don’t see it that way. As you probebly already assumed I, along with all other Evangelicals who study history, see the modern Roman Catholic Church as a “Jonnie come lately.” Namely in the 12-13 centuries. But I think that this is a different subject.”

Michael,

What evidence do you have to support this claim? We Catholics share many of the same beliefs held by the Eastern Orthodox, are they a 12-13th century “Johnny come lately,” too?

Any one else want to address this?

Peace
[/quote]

Try reading “THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH” by Eusebius (263-339). He is a Greek Bishop who was a friend of Constantine. His is the only surviving account of the first 300 years of the Church.

**

[quote=dennisknapp]Michael P wrote on another thread,
[/quote]


Someone else:
Quote:
Catholics have the fullness of history to witness to the Church. Catholics can be called many things, but “Johnny come lately” is not one of them.


Michael P:
“But I certianly don’t see it that way. As you probebly already assumed I, along with all other Evangelicals who study history, see the modern Roman Catholic Church as a “Jonnie come lately.” Namely in the 12-13 centuries. But I think that this is a different subject.”


**Michael, **


What evidence do you have to support this claim? We Catholics share many of the same beliefs held by the Eastern Orthodox, are they a 12-13th century “Johnny come lately,” too?


Any one else want to address this?


Peace**


**## IMO, there have been developments which - with hindsight - have had a particularly striking effect on the Church, to make what is now modern RCism - and, other Christianities. **


**This cannot be measured by a simple listing of what is held by different churches, or by a given church at different times. **


**I think the decision to include Gentiles in the Church was the most fateful of all, as it *probably *was one of the main reasons that the community founded by Jesus ceased to be an eschatological sect within Judaism, and gradually turned into a body which took for granted that it would have a life on earth of several generations. I think that this change is the germ of the church’s “early catholicism”, and that from this both the Roman and Eastern types of Catholicism are descended. **


To call what happened to the community founded by Jesus “apostasy” as some do, is to over-simplify. “Apostasy” is simply another word for “development”, as seen by an opponent of that particular example of it. The word is a theological interpretation of an unwelcome historical entity, and has no more meaning than saying that a plague is caused by God, when its true cause is bad sanitation and poverty. All historical events - those of Church History included - can be accounted for by causes within history - that is why the Resurrection is so important: if it happened at all, it cannot be accounted for within history, i.e., within time & space. Which is why it is impossible to prove it - but that is another matter. ##

[quote=Church Militant]Then you got an “F” on this part of it…
The Eastern church separated from the West in 1054AD. and it was because the stupid crusaders sacked Byzantium… Someone sure twisted your history…even A&E doesn’t agree with you.
I suggest that you get your money back from the preacher who sold you that info… because it’s DEAD WRONG.
Pax vobiscum,
[/quote]

The Crusaders sacked Byzantium in 1204. How could this be the cause of something that happened 250 years previously?

Actually you aren’t as wrong as you appear to be, since the schism did not occur once for all in 1054 but over a period of centuries, and the sack of Constantinople did play a role in making the schism permanent. However, the plain fact is that the Orthodox have historically believed that papal supremacy as claimed by Catholicism is an innnovation. Attempts to explain this away or sweep it under the rug only discredit Catholicism.

Michael’s original statement that “modern Roman Catholicism” dates from the 12-13th century is almost meaningless. Modern Roman Catholicism is by definition modern. Therefore it does not date from as early as the 12-13th century. The whole game of “who started when” is silly. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both have a greater continuity with the original Catholic Church of the 2nd century than any form of Protestantism. At the same time, both churches have changed/developed significantly, and contrary to the fantasy of some Catholic apologists, a simple knowledge of history does not make people become Catholic.

In Christ,

Edwin

:rotfl: The magic combination of caesaropapism and persistent Arianism in the East were the deep, ongoing, underlying reasons.
The “caesaropapism” argument has some validity, but there’s a good deal to be said on both sides (try reading some John Meyendorff). But “persistent Arianism”? Where do you find this persistent Arianism after the 4th century? Could you give some evidence for this rather bizarre claim?

In Christ,

Edwin

:rotfl: The magic combination of caesaropapism and persistent Arianism in the East were the deep, ongoing, underlying reasons.
The “caesaropapism” accusation has some basis, although there’s a case to be made on both sides (read some John Meyendorff). But “persistent Arianism”? Where do you find this persistent Arianism in the East after the 4th century? Are you seriously telling me that Photius, for instance, was an Arian? What evidence do you have for this bizarre claim?

In Christ,

Edwin

[quote=Joannes]Hello all:

Non-Catholics have to attack today’s Catholic Church because she claims to be the Church Jesus founded: if she is, then their sects indeed must be “Johnny-come-latelies”.
[/quote]

Ecumenical Protestants don’t care, because we think we are part of the same Church you are. We are all descended from the Catholic Church of the 2nd century.

[quote=Joannes]In my experience Evangelicals usually say the Catholic Church started with Constantine, not as late as the 12-13 the centuries.
[/quote]

It all depends what you mean. Asking when “the Catholic Church” started is a silly question. However, Protestants believe that over time some erroneous beliefs and practices were adopted by the Church, and that the Reformation was an effort to correct these things. Which beliefs and practices these are, just how erroneous they are, when they developed, and how successful the Reformation was in dealing with them–all of these are subjects on which Protestants differ among themselves.

To casual observers the Eastern Orthodox may seem to have a better case.

To some non-casual observers as well. Pretending that the issues are not serious accomplishes nothing except to discredit yourself.

None of these people, however, neither the casual Western observers nor the separated Eastern Christians themselves, have a theory of doctrinal development

This is the basic sickness of Western Christendom–the idea that you have to have a theory of it or it doesn’t count. Theories of doctrinal development can always be pulled to pieces. What matters is that we all agree that doctrinal development happens. The Church does not live on theories. Are you suggesting that Catholicism was not the true Church until Newman wrote Essay on Development?

And if you seriously think that thoughtful Protestants don’t believe in doctrinal development, you have been talking to the wrong Protestants.

and none of them dares to grapple with Catholic theology or the first-millenium evidence in both East and West for the Roman Primacy.

This is patronizing nonsense. Plenty of Protestants and Orthodox grapple with all these things.

Are you suggesting that Jaroslav Pelikan didn’t grapple seriously with the issues before he chose to become Orthodox (when he could quite easily have become Catholic instead)?

In Christ,

Edwin

Hello Contarini:

You said:

[quote=Contarini]Ecumenical Protestants don’t care, because we think we are part of the same Church you are. We are all descended from the Catholic Church of the 2nd century.
[/quote]

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to claim membership in something you have left, or inheritance of something you have repudiated. And where is the unity of faith? What you testify to is merely acquiescence in schism and acceptance of heterodoxy.

[quote=Contarini]It all depends what you mean. Asking when “the Catholic Church” started is a silly question. However, Protestants believe that over time some erroneous beliefs and practices were adopted by the Church, and that the Reformation was an effort to correct these things. Which beliefs and practices these are, just how erroneous they are, when they developed, and how successful the Reformation was in dealing with them–all of these are subjects on which Protestants differ among themselves.
[/quote]

If some “erroneous beliefs and practices” were adopted, then Christ was plainly unable to fulfill His promise that the “gates of hell” would not prevail over His Church. To say that these “erroneous beliefs and practices” were adopted “over time” is merely to admit that one doesn’t know when they were adopted, and a witness who doesn’t know when is no witness at all. Furthermore, witnesses who tell different stories are not reliable, they don’t know what they are talking about. So much for the discordant “witness” of Protestantism. Blind guides!

[quote=Contarini]This is the basic sickness of Western Christendom–the idea that you have to have a theory of it or it doesn’t count. Theories of doctrinal development can always be pulled to pieces. What matters is that we all agree that doctrinal development happens. The Church does not live on theories. Are you suggesting that Catholicism was not the true Church until Newman wrote Essay on Development?

And if you seriously think that thoughtful Protestants don’t believe in doctrinal development, you have been talking to the wrong Protestants. .
[/quote]

Well, if Protestants or EO’s have a theory on doctrinal development, they keep it well hidden, and I can’t imagine what it could be. Why do they then constantly charge us with “Catholic inventions” when it is manifest that our fully-developed doctrines have antecedents in the actual beliefs and practices of what Protestants and Eastern Orthodox would call “the Undivided Church”? It is not so much our having a theory of development that matters: what is shocking is that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox give no indication that THEY have one! Furthermore, while developed Catholic doctrines are still true to type, the Protestant or EO outright denial of them is not, but rather manifestly conflicts with their own actual beliefs.

[quote=Contarini]This is patronizing nonsense. Plenty of Protestants and Orthodox grapple with all these things.

Are you suggesting that Jaroslav Pelikan didn’t grapple seriously with the issues before he chose to become Orthodox (when he could quite easily have become Catholic instead)?
[/quote]

I am unable to get into the minds of separated Christians, so I can’t know how invincibly ignorant or how truly free the minds and wills of any one in particular are. I can only surmise by words and actions, so my statement is a general statement of how most Protestants act. A scholar like Pelikan truly perplexes, though I note that his vote is at least a vote against your Protestantism, though not one in favor of Catholicism (except with regard to Catholic doctrines that are held also by Eastern Orthodoxy). I have noted often, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy is a good deal easier for a Protestant to go to than Catholicism is, because one doesn’t have to surrender as much of one’s Protestantism, and most of all, they’re still anti-Roman, which is the good part!

But it still remains manifest that most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do not show that they are in the least acquainted with the Catholic doctrines (and their basis in history, Scripture, and Tradition) that they disparage. And I can’t resist comparing these non-Catholics’ pitiful struggles with Mario Cuomo’s famous struggles with his conscience: as some wag put it, when Mario struggles with his conscience *he *always wins!

I hope all this is helpful to you.

Regards,
Joannes

[quote=Joannes]Clearly it is the Catholic Church presided over by Rome, that miraculous icon of universal Christianity (per Vladimir. Soloviev).
[/quote]

Soloviev? A man whose theological acumen would not fill a teacup!

Go back and read Berdyaev’s account of him…
forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=398410&postcount=240

[quote=Contarini]The “caesaropapism” argument has some validity, but there’s a good deal to be said on both sides (try reading some John Meyendorff). But “persistent Arianism”? Where do you find this persistent Arianism after the 4th century? Could you give some evidence for this rather bizarre claim?

[/quote]

Yes, it is a bizarre claim! The East managed to smother Arianism centuries before the West did.

Arianism was rampant in most of the northern areas under the Pope -Germany, etc.

And let’s remember that the filioque was added to the Creed, in Spain in the 8th century and in Rome in the 12th - to counteract the influence of Arianism.

The West’s problems with Arianism continued for many centuries. Which Pope was it who complained that “the whole world has become Arian”?

[quote=Joannes]It is not so much our having a theory of development that matters: what is shocking is that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox give no indication that THEY have one!
[/quote]

Doctrinal development? Lord, deliver us!

I have noted often, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy is a good deal easier for a Protestant to go to than Catholicism is,

Not a sustainable argument. More Protestants convert to Catholicism than to Orthodoxy.

because one doesn’t have to surrender as much of one’s Protestantism

Would it be rude to laugh at this point? :smiley:

But it still remains manifest that most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do not show that they are in the least acquainted with the Catholic doctrines (and their basis in history, Scripture, and Tradition) that they disparage

Have you read any writings of Orthodox theologians?

Ioannes, it seems to me that it is not good to trivialise matters in order to score points against the Orthodox. They are not as dumb as you want others to believe.

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Doctrinal development? Lord, deliver us!

Not a sustainable argument. More Protestants convert to Catholicism than to Orthodoxy.

Would it be rude to laugh at this point? :smiley:

Have you read any writings of Orthodox theologians?

Ioannes, it seems to me that it is not good to trivialise matters in order to score points against the Orthodox. They are not as dumb as you want others to believe.
[/quote]

Fr. Ambrose,

I used the Orthodox to make a point. Micheal P claims that Modern Catholicism is a 12-13th century development. The issue between Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are very different that those between Latin Catholics and Protestants.

We do share many of the same beliefs and Protestants are wrong to use Eastern Orthodox theology against Latin Catholics.

Modern Catholicism cannot be a 12-13th century development, for the split happened long before that time, and yet we still share many core beliefs.

You once stated that you were on this forum to keep us in line regarding Orthodox theology. Could you do the same for those Protestants who want to use your theology to defend their position against Latin Catholics?

Peace

Fr. Ambrose,

Soloviev? A man whose theological acumen would not fill a teacup!

Soloviev was a Russian Orthodox scholar and friend of Dostoyevsky who published many works of philosophy, logic, metaphysics, theology, and theosophy. Russian Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky has praised Soloviev in his effort to reuinite Russian Orthodoxy with Catholicism.

I’m curious, what have you published?

Hello Father Ambrose:

I believe it was not a pope, but St Jerome who said that the world “groaned to find itself Arian”, “mundus ingemuit se esse arianum”, if memory serves.

But it is unremarkable that particularly the German tribes in the West espoused Arianism. They picked this up from their fellow German Goths, who had been converted by the Arian bishop Wulfila (Ulfilas). Indeed the Visigoths had conquered part of France and most of Spain, and the Ostrogoths had begun the Kingdom of Italy when the dispossessed the last Western Emperor. Their associated peoples (Suevi, Lombards, Vandals and just about all other German peoples) also were Arians. This is why it was such big news when the Franks under Clovis became Catholics instead of Arians. In God’s providence they prevailed over the others, and I do recall that the Visigoths and the others were eventually converted from Arianism to Catholicism. So although your East with Rome’s help was able to “smother” your Ariansim let’s remember that it was your home-grown heresy and never took root among the Catholics in the West, and it was withstood and eventually digested by Rome. It is untrue to say that Arianism prevailed in areas under papal jurisdiction: the fact that they were Arian shows they were heretics who denied papal jurisdiction.

The Filioque is entirely orthodox and legitimate, just as your Byzantine hierarchy in the 15th century agreed it was. You Eastern Orthodox who attack it now as heretical are in fact materially heretical in denying this Roman teaching and Rome’s teaching authority in general.

Your Berdiajev quote doesn’t deny Soloviev’s “theological acumen” in the least. Actually I’ll go with Soloviev rather than Berdiajev within the parameters of Berdiajev’s criticism anyway, since Berdiajev seems to me to be espousing your insufficient EO “eucharistic” ecclesiology, which simply ignores the questions that Catholic universalist ecclesiology answers. I mean that he, like other EO’s, seems entirely too subjective in approaching the question of the Church. But whatever the merits of Berdiajev’s criticism, it seems to me that Soloviev’s remarks on the deficiencies of the EO churches are absolutely brilliant, and he was furthermore courageous in daring to prescribe the correct medicine for these defects, viz., the Roman Primacy. Hans Urs von Balthasar and many others have testified to this long before this email of mine, so my lionizing of Soloviev is entirely reasonable, painful as it must be for you to hear! But anyway, I take responsibility for brandishing the Soloviev bon mot: I used it because I thought it appropriate, because it encapsulates what I think.

Regards,
Joannes

Hello all,

Well, I am neither Eastern Orthodox, Protestant (although some might call me this), nor Catholic; but here is how I see it (and this together with 50cents you can get a phone call).

There was an early church. The evidence that has survived to today suggests that it believed certain things. Developments took place long before Eastern Orthodox and Catholics ceased to walk the same path.
If the developments of Nicea and follow on ECs were valid developments, I do not see what happened to justify the rejection of continual development after the fourth council or after the seventh council.

It is my position that I cannot see historical precedent that makes the developments of the first 4 or first 7 councils superior to the continual development that occurred after these councils. It is also my position that if the developments of the first 4 or 7 councils were perfectly in line with God’s will, then this can most reasonably (and perhaps only reasonably) be explained by an acknowledgement of God’s hand in these developments.

For this reason, I do not see the abandonment of the developments defined at ECs part way through the history of ECs as a very strong position. I find the Catholic arguments for continued guidance through 21 ECs to be significantly stronger than the acceptance explicitly or implicitly of 4 or 7 of the first councils.

Where I not involved in the delusion all here but me believe I am involved in, I would be Catholic and thoroughly convinced that this is the path God prepared my intellect to recognize. I cannot explain R.C. Sproul or Pelikan. They are brilliant, and so I must acknowledge that faith and reason point me solidly in a different direction than it seems they are pointed.

So were I Catholic I would acknowledge that the modern Catholic Church is not the exactly the same as the 2nd century church, exactly the same as the 12th century church, or exactly the same as the pre-Vatican II church; but I would maintain that this is how God has directed his church.

I really recommend to all who care anything about the truth claims of the Catholic Church to read An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman.

Charity, TOm

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.