Rome or Israel?

[uruviel]

The church has no "earthly" home. I suppose it would be Rome if you had to say, because the vatican and the pope are there. But the church has no home on earth.

[Cam42]

I think that people are confusing the the Kingdom of God with the Church.

I would wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God has no earthly home or realm. However, the Church as an earthly confederation is based out of Rome.

It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome. It is right to say that where Peter is, there is the Church. For the Church must have a tangible-ness to it, so that, by definiton she can serve the people whom she serves.

The Church is an earthly insitiution. Insofar as that is the case, Rome is the home of the Church. Israel may be where the man Jesus resided, but his Vicar created the See of his Church in Rome, Italy.

It is neither incorrect nor is it improper to express this.

Again, the Kingdom of God is a totally different matter, altogether.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Oct 7 2005, 06:34 PM']Avignon! Avignon! Avignon!

:
[right][snapback]749920[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
troublemaker...

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 9 2005, 03:55 PM']I know it is hard to believe.......it is so, though.
[right][snapback]751708[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Go Yankees!

[tojo]

Pshaw! Independence, Missouri is the center of the Universe! Everyone knows that. After all that's where God has revealed to the Mormons that Christ is going to come back! Duh!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 9 2005, 04:20 PM']I think that people are confusing the the Kingdom of God with the Church.

I would wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God has no earthly home or realm.  However, the Church as an earthly confederation is based out of Rome.

It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome.  It is right to say that where Peter is, there is the Church.  For the Church must have a tangible-ness to it, so that, by definiton she can serve the people whom she serves.

The Church is an earthly insitiution.  Insofar as that is the case, Rome is the home of the Church.  Israel may be where the man Jesus resided, but his Vicar created the See of his Church in Rome, Italy.

It is neither incorrect nor is it improper to express this.

Again, the Kingdom of God is a totally different matter, altogether.
[right][snapback]751821[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I cannot reconcile this ecclesiology with what I have learned of the Church's official ecclesiology, as it makes a rift between the Church as a purely temporal institution and what the Faith teaches the Church is.

The Church is on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, because the Church [i]is[/i] the Mystical Body of Christ, no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. To say that the "heart" of the Church or the "Home" of the Church is Rome seems to me to be patantly false.

If you want to say that the heart of the Church Militant is Rome, I would still have my reservations, though I think your case for this would be stronger. However, to say that the "home" of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is Rome simply does not ring. The Church would not lose its home if Rome was destroyed today, for the Church is a wanderer.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

oh, and by the way, St. Peter also created the See of Antioch. It is by virtue of Most Holy Tradition that the Universal Pontiff resides in Rome, not by virtue of something intrinsic to the place.

As I said, the Church proper would not be "bereft of a home" if Rome, or Israel, were destroyed tomorrow.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 12 2005, 07:46 PM']oh, and by the way, St. Peter also created the See of Antioch. It is by virtue of Most Holy Tradition that the Universal Pontiff resides in Rome, not by virtue of something intrinsic to the place.

As I said, the Church proper would not be "bereft of a home" if Rome, or Israel, were destroyed tomorrow.
[right][snapback]756239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah, but God chose that place because it has always been the center of the world.

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 12 2005, 07:46 PM']oh, and by the way, St. Peter also created the See of Antioch. It is by virtue of Most Holy Tradition that the Universal Pontiff resides in Rome, not by virtue of something intrinsic to the place.

As I said, the Church proper would not be "bereft of a home" if Rome, or Israel, were destroyed tomorrow.
[right][snapback]756239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, he did create the See of Antioch, but he moved on. That is the key in that thought.

I still think that you are confusing the Kingdom of God with the earthly Church. Where does the Church look for it's guidance? It looks to the Vicar of Christ. What was the statment made in Latin before?

[quote]Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia[/quote]

There is a reason that Peter chose Rome to be the primatial See. Why is that? That is the ultimate question here. While it is most certainly not inappropriate to say that the Church resides, to a greater or lesser degree, in all baptized Christians, the home of the Church is Rome.

Why isn't it Antioch or why isn't it Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the first See and Antioch the second. It is because Peter chose Rome to be the temporal home of the Church.

This can be traced back as far as Irenaeus (c. 180AD) when he said:

[quote name='Against Heresies' date='3:3:2']Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.[/quote]

Optatus of Mileve (c. 367AD) states:

[quote name='The Schism of Donatists' date='2:2-3']You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter,sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.[/quote]

Jerome (c. 375AD) confirms:

[quote name='To Pope Damasus' date='Epistle 15:1-2']Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout,' since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain' and the garden inclosed,' I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price.' Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.' Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. Ye are the light of the world,' ye are the salt of the earth,' ye are "vessels of gold and of silver." Here are vessels of wood or of earth, which wait for the rod of iron,and eternal fire. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist."[/quote]

So Jeff, we can see that my understanding of the ecclesiology of the early Church is quite on the mark. Rome is the temporal home of the Church and this is confirmed by many of the early Church leaders, Fathers and Popes.

Finally, I think that this sums it up, as Chrysostom said circa 391AD:

[quote name='Epistle to the Romans' date='Homily 32:24'] Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (frixate) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 17.) What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! (Is. xxxv. 1) what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church. (1 Cor. xv. 38.) Would that it were now given me to throw myself round (pericuqhnai) the body of Paul, and be riveted to the tomb, and to see the dust of that body that "filled up that which was lacking" after "Christ" Col. i. 24), that bore "the marks" (stigmata,) (Gal. vi. 17) that sowed the Gospel everywhere yea, the dust of that body through which he ran to and fro everywhere![/quote]

[photosynthesis]

we should all do a phatmass pilgrimage to Rome!

[Guest JeffCR07]

Cam, God Bless,

The only position your quotes support is the position that Rome is a central place for the Church Militant, not the Church itself, which is what my previous post discussed. I think that you will admit this, and that you implicitly have already, because I notice that in your most recent post, you have modified your position, switching to the phrase "temporal home of the Church" rather than simply refering to "the Church" as you did previously.

This having been said, I do think that I was too harsh on you in my previous post. Perhaps I should have read it more charitably and assumed that when you wrote "the Church" you really meant "the Church Militant." If that is the case, then I apologize for being to critical in my reading.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 13 2005, 10:24 PM']Cam, God Bless,

The only position your quotes support is the position that Rome is a central place for the Church Militant, not the Church itself, which is what my previous post discussed. I think that you will admit this, and that you implicitly have already, because I notice that in your most recent post, you have modified your position, switching to the phrase "temporal home of the Church" rather than simply refering to "the Church" as you did previously.

This having been said, I do think that I was too harsh on you in my previous post. Perhaps I should have read it more charitably and assumed that when you wrote "the Church" you really meant "the Church Militant." If that is the case, then I apologize for being to critical in my reading.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff


[right][snapback]757692[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Apology accepted, however there is no change in position.....there is also no modification......the home of the Church is Rome. It is supported by the above quotes.

Your nuance of "temporal" is noted, however, the reading of the statement, "The home of the Church is Rome, " and "The temporal home of the Church is Rome," means the same thing.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 13 2005, 10:44 PM']Apology accepted, however there is no change in position.....there is also no modification......the home of the Church is Rome.  It is supported by the above quotes.

Your nuance of "temporal" is noted, however, the reading of the statement, "The home of the Church is Rome, " and "The temporal home of the Church is Rome," means the same thing.
[right][snapback]757778[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I must cordially disagree, and I invite you to consider whether or not you believe that "The Church" and "The Church Militant" are the same thing.

I maintain that you would be right to say that Rome could perhaps be considered as the "home" of the Church Militant, since that is where Peter, the Vicar of Christ [i]on earth[/i] resides.

However, I believe it absurd to claim that Rome is the "home" of the Church proper, as I refuse to believe that the Church Triumphant looks to the successor of Peter for its headship when Christ, the True Head, is physically there with them.

So, I maintain that while Rome may be the "home" of the Church Militant, it is not the "home" of the Church as a whole. It will take some mighty fine arguing in order to get me to change that position

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[journeyman]

Anywhere and Everywhere

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them



Not to argue with folks who are light years over my head, but doesn't that bring the head of the Church Triumphant into the midst of the Church Militant?


I like the idea of an Army of One, too
so feel free to toss "oxymoron" in my direction

what may be getting in the way of agreement is the term "church" . . . which Jeff has noted could include the Church Militant and Church Triumphant . . . which Cam has noted moved with Peter from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome . . . which my PC says is the community of believers

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 14 2005, 10:14 PM']I must cordially disagree, and I invite you to consider whether or not you believe that "The Church" and "The Church Militant" are the same thing.

I maintain that you would be right to say that Rome could perhaps be considered as the "home" of the Church Militant, since that is where Peter, the Vicar of Christ [i]on earth[/i] resides.

However, I believe it absurd to claim that Rome is the "home" of the Church proper, as I refuse to believe that the Church Triumphant looks to the successor of Peter for its headship when Christ, the True Head, is physically there with them.

So, I maintain that while Rome may be the "home" of the Church Militant, it is not the "home" of the Church as a whole. It will take some mighty fine arguing in order to get me to change that position 

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]758966[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe that I stated that persons may be confusing the Kingdom of God (Church Triumphant) and the Church (earthly Church). It seems that you have misunderstood me.

For I did, in fact, say:

[quote name='Cam42 @Oct 9 2005' date=' 05:20 PM'] think that people are confusing the the Kingdom of God with the Church.

I would wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God has no earthly home or realm. However, the Church as an earthly confederation is based out of Rome.[/quote]

So, it would seem that you are arguing the same point as I am, although you are using slightly different language than I am. However, to say Church Triumphant and Kingdom of God is acceptable, as one is used interchangibly with the other in a theological sense.

As a matter of fact, I go on to say in that same post:

[quote name='Cam42 @ Oct 9 2005' date=' 05:20 PM'] would wholeheartedly agree that the Kingdom of God has no earthly home or realm. However, the Church as an earthly confederation is based out of Rome.

It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome. It is right to say that where Peter is, there is the Church. For the Church must have a tangible-ness to it, so that, by definiton she can serve the people whom she serves.

The Church is an earthly insitiution. Insofar as that is the case, Rome is the home of the Church. Israel may be where the man Jesus resided, but his Vicar created the See of his Church in Rome, Italy.[/quote]

You say, in relation to my response:

[quote name='JeffCR07 @ Oct 12 2005' date=' 07:42 PM ']However, to say that the "home" of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is Rome simply does not ring.[/quote]

Show me where I said that. I didn't.

[quote name='JeffCR07 @ Yesterday' date=' 10:14 PM']I believe it absurd to claim that Rome is the "home" of the Church proper, as I refuse to believe that the Church Triumphant looks to the successor of Peter for its headship when Christ, the True Head, is physically there with them.[/quote]

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. I will spare you the full texts, I know that you can look them up yourself.

When speaking of the Church, one must make use of two aspects; these two aspects of visibility are termed respectively "material" and "formal" visibility by Catholic theologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; a society manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages the true Church of Christ will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divine society of the Son of God, the means of salvation offered by God to men; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it must know it comes from God.

If you take the time to read the encyclical [i]Immortale Dei[/i], by Pope Leo XIII, written in 1885, you can more readily see what I am talking about when I speak of the Church as a temporal society and having a home in Rome.