What is the one true Church?

[BreadOfLife]

Yes they did. Paul's ministry was being harassed by the Judaizers-Jewish-Christians. They came to James for a ruling to call them off.

The point me to the VERSE.
Verse 2 says they went to the "Apostles and Elders."

NOWHERE is James even mentioned until they get to Jerusalem.

I have already explained that all the Apostles were leaders.....but in 85 AD James and Paul and Peter were dead and the Temple was destroyed and both Christianity and the Jews were experiencing severe persecutions. At which point the Jews and Christians were renegades in hiding. What we take away from this period is anything but a structured church. There were Christians that were writing but that does not make them leaders either in the authoritative sense. And there are no Popes in this period. At this point it is a matter of being the senior Christian in the region.....more likely unofficial Bishops....it takes a organized church to nominate or designate Bishops or anybody could stand up a claim they were Bishops. And the "see" of Peter or "victor of Christ" are more modern Catholic terms.

I figured you would cop-out instead of giving an intelligent answer.

for the record - Clement's intervention in Corinth is a TEXTBOOK example of Papal power.
Less than ONE century later, Irenaeus lists ALL of the Popes from his own time, going ALL the way back to Peter in his Against Heresies.

But hey - YOU still have your denials . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

The point me to the VERSE.
Verse 2 says they went to the "Apostles and Elders."

NOWHERE is James even mentioned until they get to Jerusalem.

So what?

I figured you would cop-out instead of giving an intelligent answer.

for the record - Clement's intervention in Corinth is a TEXTBOOK example of Papal power.
Less than ONE century later, Irenaeus lists ALL of the Popes from his own time, going ALL the way back to Peter in his Against Heresies.

But hey - YOU still have your denials . . .

There is no "Papal power" in this era.
So lets go over what Irenaeus was....
Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was brought up in a Christian family rather than converting as an adult. During the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor from 161 to 180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon.

Eusebius of Caesarea also notes that after persecutions in Gaul in 177 Irenaeus succeeded the martyred Pothinus as Bishop of Lugdunum.

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle.

Keeping mind that the term and meaning of Bishop is a more modern word.
Bishop comes from the Greek episkopos, meaning “overseer” from the elements epi or “over” and skopein, “to look.” The early Christians adopted the name for a religious leader. The Old English word bisceop, from which we get our modern English word bishop, comes to us from the Latin word episcopus.

What word do you think Irenaeus knew and called himself.

 

[David in NJ]

Such ignorance.
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

Apostate Jerusalem and NOT Rome or the Vatican is the “Whore” of Babylon.
FIRST of all – pagan Rome IS Babylon. As for Apostate Jerusalem . . .

1. She "sits on 7 HILLS" (Rev. 17:9)
- Vatican Hill is NOT one of the 7 hills of Rome: Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, Viminal Hill
- Jerusalem DOES sit on 7 hills: Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet, Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel, the original Mount Zion, the New Mount Zion and the hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built

2. She is called "The Great City" (Rev. 17:18)
- Jerusalem is called the "Great City" - “where also their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8).

3. She is "Drunk on the blood of God's Holy people" (Rev 17:6)
- Not ONLY did Jerusalem kill the prophets (Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34) - she persecuted the Early Church (Gal. 4:9, 2 Cor 11:23-26).

4. "Jerusalem is the "Faithful City" has become a Whore.
- Isaiah 1:21 laments, "How the FAITHFUL CITY HAS BECOME A WHORE, she who was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers."

We read that the “ten horns” and the beast will hate the prostitute. “They will make her “desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Rev. 17:16).

What happened in 70 AD??
Pagan Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.

Jerusalem truly is in bondage with her children today.

The RCC/Vatican is the Harlot that is guilty with the blood of the Saints for almost 2,000 years, whereas Israel/Jerusalem only came back into the world arena beginning in 1948.

Don't worry - that Harlot in Rome will soon burn when the LORD puts it in their hearts to do so.

The seven mountains are the seven continents where RCC commits her adultery with the kings of the earth.

Her harlot ways can be seen everywhere with Her blatant idolatry.

 

[Illuminator]

Jerusalem truly is in bondage with her children today.

The RCC/Vatican is the Harlot that is guilty with the blood of the Saints for almost 2,000 years, whereas Israel/Jerusalem only came back into the world arena beginning in 1948.

Don't worry - that Harlot in Rome will soon burn when the LORD puts it in their hearts to do so.

The seven mountains are the seven continents where RCC commits her adultery with the kings of the earth.

Her harlot ways can be seen everywhere with Her blatant idolatry.

Off topic psychotic Hislop-ism.
Alexander Hislop was probably one of the worst scholars that I've ever read. He tries to connect all of paganism to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis, and then connect that system to the Roman Catholic Church. The logic he uses is abominable, and he misquotes references in order to make his claims. He is academically dishonest and his work has no credibility.
David in NJ is a brain damaged Hislopite. His posts have no credibility.

 

[David in NJ]

Off topic psychotic Hislop-ism.
Alexander Hislop was probably one of the worst scholars that I've ever read. He tries to connect all of paganism to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis, and then connect that system to the Roman Catholic Church. The logic he uses is abominable, and he misquotes references in order to make his claims. He is academically dishonest and his work has no credibility.
David in NJ is a brain damaged Hislopite. His posts have no credibility.

Just the other day i was going thru the TV channels and stopped at the RCC channel.

What caught my attention???

The Cardinal was kneeling before a statue of Mary that was on the altar exalted above him.

He was worshipping before a statue, praying repetitious idolatrous prayers to the 'Queen of heaven'.

RCC is ancient paganism relabeled as christianity, whereby the ignorant are mislead down to the gates of hell.

The Saints who have the Holy Spirit know this and will never give themselves to such evil and darkness.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So what?

So what??

YOUR lie is that they went to see James.
The BIBLE, however, says that they wwent to see the Apostles and Elders.

That makes you a LIAR . . .

There is no "Papal power" in this era.
So lets go over what Irenaeus was....
Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was brought up in a Christian family rather than converting as an adult. During the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor from 161 to 180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon.

Eusebius of Caesarea also notes that after persecutions in Gaul in 177 Irenaeus succeeded the martyred Pothinus as Bishop of Lugdunum.

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle.

Keeping mind that the term and meaning of Bishop is a more modern word.
Bishop comes from the Greek episkopos, meaning “overseer” from the elements epi or “over” and skopein, “to look.” The early Christians adopted the name for a religious leader. The Old English word bisceop, from which we get our modern English word bishop, comes to us from the Latin word episcopus.

What word do you think Irenaeus knew and called himself.

This is an asinine response - and nothing but a DODGE.
Were were talking about the PAPACY - not whether Irenaeus was a Bishop.

Irenaeus listed ALL of th POES from his own day back to Peter - which was about 100 years - destroying YOUR argument that there were no Popes until later

 

[amigo de christo]

So what?


There is no "Papal power" in this era.
So lets go over what Irenaeus was....
Unlike many of his contemporaries, he was brought up in a Christian family rather than converting as an adult. During the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor from 161 to 180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon.

Eusebius of Caesarea also notes that after persecutions in Gaul in 177 Irenaeus succeeded the martyred Pothinus as Bishop of Lugdunum.

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was said to have been tutored by John the Apostle.

Keeping mind that the term and meaning of Bishop is a more modern word.
Bishop comes from the Greek episkopos, meaning “overseer” from the elements epi or “over” and skopein, “to look.” The early Christians adopted the name for a religious leader. The Old English word bisceop, from which we get our modern English word bishop, comes to us from the Latin word episcopus.

What word do you think Irenaeus knew and called himself.

He sure didnt call himself a pope .

 

[Grailhunter]

So what??

YOUR lie is that they went to see James.
The BIBLE, however, says that they wwent to see the Apostles and Elders.

That makes you a LIAR . . .

This is an asinine response - and nothing but a DODGE.
Were were talking about the PAPACY - not whether Irenaeus was a Bishop.

Irenaeus listed ALL of th POES from his own day back to Peter - which was about 100 years - destroying YOUR argument that there were no Popes until later

The Bible does not lie read chapter 15, that is all it takes.

It is a frequent ploy of Catholics to apply more modern Catholic terms and titles to the era and the people of early Christianity with the intent to try to get people to believe that the Catholic Church was established before the 4th century. Catholic means universal and that description was used by Christians pretty early on, but the Catholic Church as an organized religion did not occur until centuries later. About the time that the first Catholic Church buildings started to appear. Any church building that existed before the Edict of Milan was subject to attack by the Romans.

As far as the use of the word Pope….If someone would have told Irenaeus back in the 1st century that they were going to make him a bishop or pope, he probably would have ran for the hills thinking they were either going to hex him or turn him into some sort of frog. Not his language.

Now if they told him they were going to make him a episkopos….which was Greek for overseer, he would have understood. Overseer was the term for the lead Christian in the area, but not necessarily a title. A tradition eventually developed that people would refer to the overseer as papa or father which is a ironic since Christ said, Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

As a title, the word papa in Greek or Latin appears to have first been used by Bishop Siricius in the 4th century; its use became more frequent in the course of the 5th century. So common that Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome in 1071.

The English word pope or the title of Pope….when was it first used? Well first the English language has to happen. Old English originated in Germany. Middle English dates between 1150 CE to around 1450. But it is not an instant in time, English slowly caught on in different countries, but it was not popular in Italy…. Rome. Even today they are trying to outlaw English in Italy.

The Catholic leadership in this period was located in Avignon, France until 1420. The French spoke French and still do today….they were using the word Pape and it is pronounce pop, but was it used as a title?

Now when was the English word Pope first used? When did it first appear on stationary or documents? It is a matter of debate. But one thing for sure the English word Pope could not be used until the English language existed and most probably not until it became popular. Why would the Catholic Church give someone the title of Pope if only few knew what it meant? Until I see a historical signature with a timestamp I am going to go with the 15th century as the era that a person was first given the title of Pope. Considering how resistant the Italians were to English I would not be surprised if it was not later.

From the Catholic standpoint it is customary to give the title of Pope to persons in the past before the word existed….and that is misleading.

 

[Jim B]

The Bible does not lie read chapter 15, that is all it takes.

It is a frequent ploy of Catholics to apply more modern Catholic terms and titles to the era and the people of early Christianity with the intent to try to get people to believe that the Catholic Church was established before the 4th century. Catholic means universal and that description was used by Christians pretty early on, but the Catholic Church as an organized religion did not occur until centuries later. About the time that the first Catholic Church buildings started to appear. Any church building that existed before the Edict of Milan was subject to attack by the Romans.

As far as the use of the word Pope….If someone would have told Irenaeus back in the 1st century that they were going to make him a bishop or pope, he probably would have ran for the hills thinking they were either going to hex him or turn him into some sort of frog. Not his language.

Now if they told him they were going to make him a episkopos….which was Greek for overseer, he would have understood. Overseer was the term for the lead Christian in the area, but not necessarily a title. A tradition eventually developed that people would refer to the overseer as papa or father which is a ironic since Christ said, Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

As a title, the word papa in Greek or Latin appears to have first been used by Bishop Siricius in the 4th century; its use became more frequent in the course of the 5th century. So common that Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome in 1071.

The English word pope or the title of Pope….when was it first used? Well first the English language has to happen. Old English originated in Germany. Middle English dates between 1150 CE to around 1450. But it is not an instant in time, English slowly caught on in different countries, but it was not popular in Italy…. Rome. Even today they are trying to outlaw English in Italy.

The Catholic leadership in this period was located in Avignon, France until 1420. The French spoke French and still do today….they were using the word Pape and it is pronounce pop, but was it used as a title?

Now when was the English word Pope first used? When did it first appear on stationary or documents? It is a matter of debate. But one thing for sure the English word Pope could not be used until the English language existed and most probably not until it became popular. Why would the Catholic Church give someone the title of Pope if only few knew what it meant? Until I see a historical signature with a timestamp I am going to go with the 15th century as the era that a person was first given the title of Pope.

From the Catholic standpoint it is customary to give the title of Pope to persons in the past before the word existed….and that is misleading.

Great post! Very informative and accurate. Thanks!

 

[Jim B]

So what??

YOUR lie is that they went to see James.
The BIBLE, however, says that they wwent to see the Apostles and Elders.

That makes you a LIAR . . .

This is an asinine response - and nothing but a DODGE.
Were were talking about the PAPACY - not whether Irenaeus was a Bishop.

Irenaeus listed ALL of th POES from his own day back to Peter - which was about 100 years - destroying YOUR argument that there were no Popes until later

Is this the way your denomination tells you to behave?

And why is your communication so sloppy? "wwent"; "th POES" is poor English.

 

[amigo de christo]

The Bible does not lie read chapter 15, that is all it takes.

It is a frequent ploy of Catholics to apply more modern Catholic terms and titles to the era and the people of early Christianity with the intent to try to get people to believe that the Catholic Church was established before the 4th century. Catholic means universal and that description was used by Christians pretty early on, but the Catholic Church as an organized religion did not occur until centuries later. About the time that the first Catholic Church buildings started to appear. Any church building that existed before the Edict of Milan was subject to attack by the Romans.

As far as the use of the word Pope….If someone would have told Irenaeus back in the 1st century that they were going to make him a bishop or pope, he probably would have ran for the hills thinking they were either going to hex him or turn him into some sort of frog. Not his language.

Now if they told him they were going to make him a episkopos….which was Greek for overseer, he would have understood. Overseer was the term for the lead Christian in the area, but not necessarily a title. A tradition eventually developed that people would refer to the overseer as papa or father which is a ironic since Christ said, Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

As a title, the word papa in Greek or Latin appears to have first been used by Bishop Siricius in the 4th century; its use became more frequent in the course of the 5th century. So common that Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome in 1071.

The English word pope or the title of Pope….when was it first used? Well first the English language has to happen. Old English originated in Germany. Middle English dates between 1150 CE to around 1450. But it is not an instant in time, English slowly caught on in different countries, but it was not popular in Italy…. Rome. Even today they are trying to outlaw English in Italy.

The Catholic leadership in this period was located in Avignon, France until 1420. The French spoke French and still do today….they were using the word Pape and it is pronounce pop, but was it used as a title?

Now when was the English word Pope first used? When did it first appear on stationary or documents? It is a matter of debate. But one thing for sure the English word Pope could not be used until the English language existed and most probably not until it became popular. Why would the Catholic Church give someone the title of Pope if only few knew what it meant? Until I see a historical signature with a timestamp I am going to go with the 15th century as the era that a person was first given the title of Pope.

From the Catholic standpoint it is customary to give the title of Pope to persons in the past before the word existed….and that is misleading.

That makes sense concerning the french . As french is tied to latin .
Yeah i did much research concering the english tongue years ago . And i learned about where some tongues stemmed from as well .
I did it to prove a point . It was a point i already knew to be true . The kjv bible was accurate and men had lied to us .
I did extensive research on our own common tongue where it stemmed from
how even french and latin influenced it . And that french was tied to latin itself .
How that even our alaphabet stems from latin . How english even stems from german and german from old saxon .
The ruinc form of english and etc . PS the RCC is no church . It sold out long ago . long ago .
I researched all of this too . With REAL books and real studies in the library .
Even read a book from a catholic himself who still is a catholic . And all he wrote about the popes .
And even that man was honest enough to say there is no history of peter or others ever having been a pope .
The history of actual recorded popes came years later . Also , did you know
that there were some faithful followers of CHRIST who even prostested greatly this joining
the church with Rome . Dont let folks fool us , constantine was no man of God .
He simply knew what he had to do to try and unify the kingdom under him
and the sold out were all to fast to bring church and state together with a promise of no more persecution .
BUT it changed . It adapted to pagan forms . Ecumincalism was born and JESUS CHRIST , well they booted him to the curb
and formed what they saw as a more perfect inclusive religion . SEEMS NOT it never has ended . I MEAN LOOK at TODAY .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jerusalem truly is in bondage with her children today.

The RCC/Vatican is the Harlot that is guilty with the blood of the Saints for almost 2,000 years, whereas Israel/Jerusalem only came back into the world arena beginning in 1948.

Don't worry - that Harlot in Rome will soon burn when the LORD puts it in their hearts to do so.

The seven mountains are the seven continents where RCC commits her adultery with the kings of the earth.

Her harlot ways can be seen everywhere with Her blatant idolatry.

If killing Christians were the ONLY criteria for being the "Harlot" - then Ptotestansim woulkd ALSO fit the bill.
PROTESTANT hanged, burned, starved to death and otherwise murdered Catholics with just as much fervor.

And that "seven continent" nonsene is a fairly recent anti-Catholic invention since they can't pin the "seven hills" on the Vatican . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

Is this the way your denomination tells you to behave?

And why is your communication so sloppy? "wwent"; "th POES" is poor English.

Rather strange you brought this up . You do realize you are slave to that very denomination .
I mean aint it YOU saying we , the muslims and etc worship the same GOD .
WHO YA THINK that came from . THE RCC pard . THE RCC . this pope francis
aint gonna save that religion , heck he will make it worse than ever before .

 

[Jim B]

That makes sense concerning the french . As french is tied to latin .
Yeah i did much research concering the english tongue years ago . And i learned about where some tongues stemmed from as well .
I did it to prove a point . It was a point i already knew to be true . The kjv bible was accurate and men had lied to us .
I did extensive research on our own common tongue where it stemmed from
how even french and latin influenced it . And that french was tied to latin itself .
How that even our alaphabet stems from latin . How english even stems from german and german from old saxon .
The ruinc form of english and etc . PS the RCC is no church . It sold out long ago . long ago .
I researched all of this too . With REAL books and real studies in the library .
Even read a book from a catholic himself who still is a catholic . And all he wrote about the popes .
And even that man was honest enough to say there is no history of peter or others ever having been a pope .
The history of actual recorded popes came years later . Also , did you know
that there were some faithful followers of CHRIST who even prostested greatly this joining
the church with Rome . Dont let folks fool us , constantine was no man of God .
He simply knew what he had to do to try and unify the kingdom under him
and the sold out were all to fast to bring church and state together with a promise of no more persecution .
BUT it changed . It adapted to pagan forms . Ecumincalism was born and JESUS CHRIST , well they booted him to the curb
and formed what they saw as a more perfect inclusive religion . SEEMS NOT it never has ended . I MEAN LOOK at TODAY .

What is going on?

You actually wrote a clear, post, with very few spelling and grammatical errors and stuck to one topic!

It is refreshing to read your thoughts, without the usual judgement and condemnation!!!

Fantastic!!! PLEASE continue to write along this vein! It is so much more thoughtful meaningful than your usual diatribes!

 

[Jim B]

Rather strange you brought this up . You do realize you are slave to that very denomination .
I mean aint it YOU saying we , the muslims and etc worship the same GOD .
WHO YA THINK that came from . THE RCC pard . THE RCC . this pope francis
aint gonna save that religion , heck he will make it worse than ever before .

Oy! Unfortunately, you're right back to writing the same garbage as before! Alas!

We and the Muslims and the Jews all worship the same God. Your saying otherwise doesn't disprove reality.

And why are you bringing the RCC into the discussion about who believes in God? I didn't learn the facts from the RCC or Pope Francis.

 

[David in NJ]

If killing Christians were the ONLY criteria for being the "Harlot" - then Ptotestansim woulkd ALSO fit the bill.
PROTESTANT hanged, burned, starved to death and otherwise murdered Catholics with just as much fervor.

And that "seven continent" nonsene is a fairly recent anti-Catholic invention since they can't pin the "seven hills" on the Vatican . . .

Revelation 2:20-23
But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads My servants to be sexually immoral and to eat food sacrificed to idols. Even though I have given her time to repent of her immorality, she is unwilling.

Behold, I will cast her onto a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her will suffer great tribulation unless they repent of her deeds.
Then I will strike her children dead, and all the churches will know that I am the One who searches minds and hearts, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

The RCC has many protestant children who commit harlotry as well.

 

[Grailhunter]

That makes sense concerning the french . As french is tied to latin .
Yeah i did much research concering the english tongue years ago . And i learned about where some tongues stemmed from as well .
I did it to prove a point . It was a point i already knew to be true . The kjv bible was accurate and men had lied to us .
I did extensive research on our own common tongue where it stemmed from
how even french and latin influenced it . And that french was tied to latin itself .
How that even our alaphabet stems from latin . How english even stems from german and german from old saxon .
The ruinc form of english and etc . PS the RCC is no church . It sold out long ago . long ago .
I researched all of this too . With REAL books and real studies in the library .
Even read a book from a catholic himself who still is a catholic . And all he wrote about the popes .
And even that man was honest enough to say there is no history of peter or others ever having been a pope .
The history of actual recorded popes came years later . Also , did you know
that there were some faithful followers of CHRIST who even prostested greatly this joining
the church with Rome . Dont let folks fool us , constantine was no man of God .
He simply knew what he had to do to try and unify the kingdom under him
and the sold out were all to fast to bring church and state together with a promise of no more persecution .
BUT it changed . It adapted to pagan forms . Ecumincalism was born and JESUS CHRIST , well they booted him to the curb
and formed what they saw as a more perfect inclusive religion . SEEMS NOT it never has ended . I MEAN LOOK at TODAY .

Yes I do agree with belief that Christians at the time did not agree with Christianity joining with the Roman Empire. For about 247 years Christians had lived, generation after generation, of persecution by the Roman Empire, I mean horrible things happening to Christians.
So animosity towards the Roman Empire would be understandable and believable. It is my understanding that some of the Bishops that came to Nicaea were still limping from the tortures and some missing appendages.

And there is the Pagan factor and I can understand how Christians of that era could take exception to this and today there are Christians that still take exception to it. But then again who was it that took exception....most of us will trace our ancestry back to the first Pagan that converted to Christianity. The Pagans that converted to Christianity converted there religious beliefs but did not abandon their regional cultural customs...many of their traditions and holidays were Christianized. So at the time of the Ecumenical Councils, those attending were Gentile-Christians from different regions and because of their background merging with Rome was not that difficult.

Still I understand how the Pagan aspect of Christianity can be offensive to some. But how do you propose to separate the Pagan aspects out of Christianity? It might be an interesting conversation?

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Bible does not lie read chapter 15, that is all it takes.

It is a frequent ploy of Catholics to apply more modern Catholic terms and titles to the era and the people of early Christianity with the intent to try to get people to believe that the Catholic Church was established before the 4th century. Catholic means universal and that description was used by Christians pretty early on, but the Catholic Church as an organized religion did not occur until centuries later. About the time that the first Catholic Church buildings started to appear. Any church building that existed before the Edict of Milan was subject to attack by the Romans.

As far as the use of the word Pope….If someone would have told Irenaeus back in the 1st century that they were going to make him a bishop or pope, he probably would have ran for the hills thinking they were either going to hex him or turn him into some sort of frog. Not his language.

Now if they told him they were going to make him a episkopos….which was Greek for overseer, he would have understood. Overseer was the term for the lead Christian in the area, but not necessarily a title. A tradition eventually developed that people would refer to the overseer as papa or father which is a ironic since Christ said, Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

As a title, the word papa in Greek or Latin appears to have first been used by Bishop Siricius in the 4th century; its use became more frequent in the course of the 5th century. So common that Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome in 1071.

The English word pope or the title of Pope….when was it first used? Well first the English language has to happen. Old English originated in Germany. Middle English dates between 1150 CE to around 1450. But it is not an instant in time, English slowly caught on in different countries, but it was not popular in Italy…. Rome. Even today they are trying to outlaw English in Italy.

The Catholic leadership in this period was located in Avignon, France until 1420. The French spoke French and still do today….they were using the word Pape and it is pronounce pop, but was it used as a title?

Now when was the English word Pope first used? When did it first appear on stationary or documents? It is a matter of debate. But one thing for sure the English word Pope could not be used until the English language existed and most probably not until it became popular. Why would the Catholic Church give someone the title of Pope if only few knew what it meant? Until I see a historical signature with a timestamp I am going to go with the 15th century as the era that a person was first given the title of Pope.

From the Catholic standpoint it is customary to give the title of Pope to persons in the past before the word existed….and that is misleading.

This converstion has been an adventure to say the least.
I don't think I've dealth with ANYBODY on this forum who is so lost in the depths of such abject ignorance as you.

First of all - Episkops and Bishop are the SAME word - in TWO (2) different LANGUAGES.
It means "Overseer" in Greek - and it means "Overseer " in English, Einstein.

As for the word, "Pope" - it is merely a term of endearment that means "Papa" or "Father". It's NOT an official title for the Bshop pof Rome.

Finally, Einstein - as to your idiotic charge that the Catholic Church only came about LATER - your ignorance is showing yet again.
Ignatiu of Antioch was a FIRST century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John. He wrote the following about the Church right before his death at the begiining of the 2nd century . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

“Follow your BISHOP obediently . . .”
“Obey your CLERGY . . .”
““The sole EUCHARIST . . .”
The CATHOLIC Church . . .”

Gee – what Church does this sound like??

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes I do agree with belief that Christians at the time did not agree with Christianity joining with the Roman Empire. For about 247 years Christians had lived, generation after generation, of persecution by the Roman Empire, I mean horrible things happening to Christians.
So animosity towards the Roman Empire would be understandable and believable. It is my understanding that some of the Bishops that came to Nicaea were still limping from the tortures and some missing appendages.

And there is the Pagan factor and I can understand how Christians of that era could take exception to this and today there are Christians that still take exception to it. But then again who was it that took exception....most of us will trace our ancestry back to the first Pagan that converted to Christianity. The Pagans that converted to Christianity converted there religious beliefs but did not abandon their regional cultural customs...many of their traditions and holidays were Christianized. So at the time of the Ecumenical Councils, those attending were Gentile-Christians from different regions and because of their background merging with Rome was not that difficult.

Still I understand how the Pagan aspect of Christianity can be offensive to some. But how do you propose to separate the Pagan aspects out of Christianity? It might be an interesting conversation?

Its real simple . Christmas in itself is not pagan . But the brining in of decorating trees and ol satan clause GOTTA GO .
Passover is not evil . But the bunnies and eggs GOTTA GO .
We can keep the traditions , JUST MAKE SURE THEY HONOR THE ONE WE CLAIM TO BE HONORING .
and pagan things DONT HONOR HIM .
I celebrate these events WITH ZERO paganism attached . I mean I WANT HONOR HE WHO SAVED ME
when i REMEMBER his birth , his crucifiction , his ressurection . THE PAGAN GOTTA GO .
IF WE love GOD we can remember these things and have ZERO need to add in the pagan stuff .
Now it is true no one knows WHEN CHRIST was born . I have no problem celebrating his birth .
The day dont bother me . THE PAGAN STUFF DOES . The greed and the lust it has become bothers me as well .
IF we truly LOVED CHRIST , LOVED GOD , why bring anything offensive to HIM into ANY celebration .
ITS VERY SIMPLE TO DO THIS . JUST dont particpate in anything , no matter how cute and cutesy one triest to make it .
Another huge example . WHEN DID GOD ever say , OH its okay to dress up in pagan costumes , witches warlocks
wizards and etc. SO HELLOWEEN IS OUT . That one IS OUT . no christain should even sniff in that Celebration in any way .
As for the others , well as i wrote above , KEEP THE PAGAN OUT OF IT . HONOR GOD , HONOR CHRIST
and lets not decieve ourselves into thinking PAGAN TRASH honors GOD . WHEN in truth the reason we do it
Is cause we like to do it and we sure dont want to OFFEND ANYONE . ITs all a lie my friend .
We can honor GOD , we just cant HONOR HIM with evil . and its HIGH TIME folks learnt , learn and LEARNED THIS WELL .
forgive me english , i wrote it on purpose to make a point . SINCE most see me as a first grade educated red neck
from the hills who can only count to twenty if my shoes and socks are off .

 

[Grailhunter]

First of all - Episkops and Bishop are the SAME word - in TWO (2) different LANGUAGES.
It means "Overseer" in Greek - and it means "Overseer " in English, Einstein.

That is my point the word Bishop did not exist....they called them Episkops.

As for the word, "Pope" - it is merely a term of endearment that means "Papa" or "Father". It's NOT an official title for the Bshop pof Rome.

Finally, Einstein - as to your idiotic charge that the Catholic Church only came about LATER - your ignorance is showing yet again.
Ignatiu of Antioch was a FIRST century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John. He wrote the following about the Church right before his death at the begiining of the 2nd century . . .

Are you saying that the term Pope is not a title?
Again the word Bishop is English it simply did not exist before the English language.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

LOL....Do you think that Ignatius spoke and wrote in English? I do not know if you are just trying to be coy or you are really this uninformed. What you have presented here is the English translation of what Ignatius wrote in Greek....He did not write the word bishop. And the word Eucharist is a modern Catholic term....as I said....Catholics use modern Catholic terms and titles and try to pass them off as being used in the early church. The word that Ignatius used was ευχαριστία which means thanksgiving. You can be sure that the little white host was not used in the first century. And Catholic is the Greek word Pankósmios....universal. The universal church. There is nothing about this that means that the Catholic Church existed in the 1st century.