Rome or Israel?

[Guest JeffCR07]

After clarifying your position, it does seem that we are arguing past each other. I am not familiar with the use of the term "Kingdom of God" as synonymous with the "Church Triumphant" and am still skeptical that such is its proper use.

The whole teaching on Realised Eschatology would seem to refute this point, as the Kingdom of God is already, but not yet present wherever the Spirit of God is. Thus, we as Catholics can say that the Kingdom of God is present among us here on earth through the theandric actions of the faithful. It is clear that "Kingdom of God" in this sense is not intended as synonymous with "Church Triumphant" as the Church Triumphant exclusively refers to those members of the Church who are in perfect communion with God in Heaven.

However, once I see that you really meant "Church Triumphant" when you said "Kingdom of God" your post gains a little more coherence with Church teaching.

[quote]Show me where I said that. I didn't.[/quote]

True, you did not explicitly say that "the 'home' of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is Rome"

instead you said "It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome" - a statement you should have qualified by pointing out that you are only talking about the Church Militant.

[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 Immortale Dei, 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.[/quote]

No need to be patronizing, I should hope that our discussion shows that I am familiar with Ecclesiology.

My issue with your post was that you were too vague and did not specify that you were talking about the Church Militant, and so your post could have lead people into theological error by causing them to think that the whole of the Church is focused towards Rome.

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 16 2005, 10:35 AM']After clarifying your position, it does seem that we are arguing past each other. I am not familiar with the use of the term "Kingdom of God" as synonymous with the "Church Triumphant" and am still skeptical that such is its proper use.

The whole teaching on Realised Eschatology would seem to refute this point, as the Kingdom of God is already, but not yet present wherever the Spirit of God is. Thus, we as Catholics can say that the Kingdom of God is present among us here on earth through the theandric actions of the faithful. It is clear that "Kingdom of God" in this sense is not intended as synonymous with "Church Triumphant" as the Church Triumphant exclusively refers to those members of the Church who are in perfect communion with God in Heaven.

However, once I see that you really meant "Church Triumphant" when you said "Kingdom of God" your post gains a little more coherence with Church teaching.
True, you did not explicitly say that "the 'home' of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is Rome"

instead you said "It is right and proper to say that the home of the Church is Rome" - a statement you should have qualified by pointing out that you are only talking about the Church Militant.
No need to be patronizing, I should hope that our discussion shows that I am familiar with Ecclesiology.

My issue with your post was that you were too vague and did not specify that you were talking about the Church Militant, and so your post could have lead people into theological error by causing them to think that the whole of the Church is focused towards Rome.
[right][snapback]760177[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Speaking of the Kingdom of God and Church Triumphant interchangibly has been done for many, many years. You may be skeptical, that is fine, however, skepticism is not a valid form of questioning. It is riddled with error.

I was not patronizing. I was straightforward. There is a difference. I also never said that you were not familiar with ecclesiology. I was simply defending my position. As it is, my point is and ever has been accurate.

I am not a fan of Realized Eschatology, as it is more preterist than Catholic, although I do know what you are saying....however, that is another discussion for another time.

As a matter of vagueness, I am often criticized as being too technical, so I was making it easier to understand for the masses. I am sorry if you find it to be too vague, but the conversation is very easy to follow. So, who is patronizing whom?

I was not looking for your approval, as a point of clarification. As it is, I will simply say this. My position is completely in line with traditional and modern Catholic thinking.

As another point of clarificaiton, it is not improper to speak of Rome as the home of the Church. I honestly don't know where you are trying to go with all of this. It is clear that the Church teaches that the home of the Church is Rome. The early Fathers, leaders, and popes think so. I think that it is ok to admit that the idea that the home of the Church, may, in fact, be Rome.

There are many more quotes that can be offered to support the position, however, I would think that Sts. Ireneus, Chrysostom, and Jerome; as well as Optatus of Mileve, would be enough proof. Perhaps not.

There is a reason why they call the Catholic Church the Holy Roman Church......I wonder if it could be because it's home is in Rome?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Speaking of the Kingdom of God and Church Triumphant interchangibly has been done for many, many years. You may be skeptical, that is fine, however, skepticism is not a valid form of questioning. It is riddled with error.[/quote]

Again, you are patronizing me. I do not need a lesson in the errors of skepticism. In fact, I am writing my thesis on just that.

This having been said, none of your universal assertion that the two have been used interchangably for "many, many years" is not backed by any documentation.

[quote]I am not a fan of Realized Eschatology[/quote]

That's fine, you don't have to be. What is significant here is that we are able to correctly say that the Kingdom of God is among us via theandric action, when the same cannot be said of the Church Triumphant. Thus, the two are not interchangeable.

[quote] it is not improper to speak of Rome as the home of the Church. I honestly don't know where you are trying to go with all of this. It is clear that the Church teaches that the home of the Church is Rome.[/quote]

The point that I am trying to make - and it is a significant one - is that while Rome may be of key importance (even to the point of being called "home") for the Church Militant, the same should NOT be said regarding the Church as a whole - Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant. The Church in its non-temporal totality does not look to Rome as its home, rather, it looks to the Parousia and the New Heaven and New Earth. In a very real and meaningful way the Church is a stranger traversing a strange land, utterly unable to call [i]any[/i] place "home" - even Rome. I am not going to patronize you with a long list of quotes on this subject, as I am sure you are familiar with them.

This is not simply a trivial distinction. Failure to express the difference between the Church Militant and the Church as a whole could very well lead to the collapse of the one into the other in the minds of people who are less knowledgable than we are.

[quote]There is a reason why they call the Catholic Church the Holy Roman Church[/quote]

None of the Eastern Rite Catholics would consider themselves a part of the Holy Roman Church. They would consider themselves part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

But this is a technicality.

[quote]As a matter of vagueness, I am often criticized as being too technical, so I was making it easier to understand for the masses.[/quote]

I understand the fear of turning people off from the faith through super-technical language, it is one of the things that I am criticised for as well.

But is it really that erudite and complex to simply say "The home of the Church on Earth is Rome, but the Church as a whole won't really have a home until Jesus comes again."?

In Christ,

Jeff

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 16 2005, 12:38 PM']Again, you are patronizing me. I do not need a lesson in the errors of skepticism. In fact, I am writing my thesis on just that.

This having been said, none of your universal assertion that the two have been used interchangably for "many, many years" is not backed by any documentation.
That's fine, you don't have to be. What is significant here is that we are able to correctly say that the Kingdom of God is among us via theandric action, when the same cannot be said of the Church Triumphant. Thus, the two are not interchangeable.
The point that I am trying to make - and it is a significant one - is that while Rome may be of key importance (even to the point of being called "home") for the Church Militant, the same should NOT be said regarding the Church as a whole - Militant, Suffering, and Triumphant. The Church in its non-temporal totality does not look to Rome as its home, rather, it looks to the Parousia and the New Heaven and New Earth. In a very real and meaningful way the Church is a stranger traversing a strange land, utterly unable to call [i]any[/i] place "home" - even Rome.  I am not going to patronize you with a long list of quotes on this subject, as I am sure you are familiar with them.

This is not simply a trivial distinction. Failure to express the difference between the Church Militant and the Church as a whole could very well lead to the collapse of the one into the other in the minds of people who are less knowledgable than we are.
None of the Eastern Rite Catholics would consider themselves a part of the Holy Roman Church. They would consider themselves part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

But this is a technicality.
I understand the fear of turning people off from the faith through super-technical language, it is one of the things that I am criticised for as well.

But is it really that erudite and complex to simply say "The home of the Church on Earth is Rome, but the Church as a whole won't really have a home until Jesus comes again."?

In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]760254[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have missed the point. You are arguing the semantics. And if that is what you choose to do, fine, however, you are incorrect.

If you need documented proof for every position, then you need to provide your sources for realized eschatology that are congruent with the Catholic Church.

Since you ask for examples of the Kingdom of God and Church triumphant....implication is all over Scripture.....

John 1:29-31
Luke 4:21
Luke 11:31
Matt. 12:6
Luke 6:5
Luke 16:16
cf. Matt. 4:23;
9:35
13:17
21:43
24:14
Mark 1:14
Luke 6:43
8:1
9:2, 60
18:17

I think that is sufficent for Scripture, although there are more instances of implication to support my position.

As far a post-Ascencion look to Acts 5:11.

I suppose that more proof can be given that the pastor of the Church (the Pope) bases himself from Rome. His home is in Rome, therefore, again, where Peter is, there is the Church.

Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Firmilian of Ceasarea, Hippolytus, and St. Ireneaus., speak to the Primacy of Peter, IN ROME. Simply do a google.

History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church.

I believe that you are being obtuse intentionally. Your thesis may be on skepticism, but that has no bearing on anything, but thanks for the information.

And technically, you are wrong.....Eastern Catholics are part of the Holy Roman Church. They recognize the Primacy of Peter. They are Roman Catholic, they are not Latin Rite. BIG DIFFERENCE.

However, I am out, as you have decided to turn this into a giant p****ing match. My point has sufficently been made. You have acknowledged this and I accept that acknowledgment.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I will bow out of this conversation, as foul language is clearly an indication that this discussion will no longer bear fruit. God Bless.