Catholic Church The First (Jesus Christ, Earth, Messiah, Kingdom, tradition)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by TruthInCatholocism

107 AD in Documents The Church is refered to as Catholic... You say the Nicene Creed.. And the 4 marks The Church is One, Holy, Catholic (yes, i know..universal), Apostolic.

And you fall into the first trap. Catholic does not mean universal. It is a Latinisation of a Greek phrase kata holos. That means 'according to the whole'. This is a type of universality but not a universality of jurisdiction or of geography - such would be ecumenical. Seems you need to brush up on the meaning of Greek, but to really understand what Catholic means you need to read St. Vincent of Lerins words on the Catholic faith. Reading St. Ignatius on the local church and bishop would help too.

Lets Break down the marks of the Church For you....

Is the Orthroox Church "One" ?

The Orthodox Church, Penguin Books, 255–8 ( Orthodox Writer) "there is no practical way for the Orthodox to call or agree upon an ecumenical council "

And this is meant to prove what? Actually, we have had several Pan-Orthodox councils (one very recently) since the Schism, one which is considered the 9th Ecumenical Council by many Orthodox. Practically, there is no difficulty in calling an Ecumenical Council for us whatsoever but we don't (no Oikumene any more, see? - doubt it given you grasp of Greek) because we call them something else. That doesn't make them any less universal or their doctrines any less binding, and no we have no need for ratification by Rome, just as we had no need for any of the first 7 or 8. (Eight incidentally being a council which condemned the filioque and which Rome held to be Ecumenical for two centuries until a Pope unilaterally replaced it with a Robber Synod after the Schism). Anyway, of course we are one. We are one in faith (which is something I don't see with the RCC - Romanian Uniates have near identical faith to mine while Latin rite RCs do not) and we are one communion. We have the same heirarchical structure the whole Church had prior to the Schism, at least before the Pope of Rome started making unwarranted claims to supremacy that evryone else always ignored. We contain four fifths of the Pentarchy to your one fifth and we have remained more unified in faith over much worse circumstances than the See of Rome so what you say here is born of nothing less than rank ignorance.

Is Orthordox Church "Catholic"

Jeus wanted the apostles to go and spread the Good News to "All Nations" Matt. 28:19–20 (Universal-Catholic) yet Orthordox confines itself mostly to Russia, Greece,.... Doesnt sound very universal..

The Orthodox Church confines itself to nowhere. There are many Orthodox churches in western Europe, north and south America, Asia (Japan and China especially, but also other countries like Indonesia), the Middle East, many countries in Africa under the Patriarchate of Alexandria. We are certainly spread as widely as Roman Catholicism and don't evn try to bring up our minority status in RC countries because RCs are tiny minorities in our homelands too. Even if catholic meant what you think it does, your attempted point here is invalid.

Almost 68 Percent of Christians are Catholic...
Almost 21 Percent Are Othordox

No offense Catholic sounds more.... well... Catholic to me

Because you don't know what catholic means, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. If you did, you'd realise that you can't play the numbers game (and you really ought not to as to say the smaller party is clearly wrong would be to condemn Rome for the Schism, as at that time Rome made up a distinct minority of the Church).

The Church is Apostolic..... (Follows the works of the Apostles)

Not sure what you intended here, but if you follow in succession from the Apostles but do not teach the faith they taught how can you claim to be Apostolic? There are many things Rome teaches as dogma now that are absolutely unknown to the early Church.

Orthodox do not recognize the pope as having the kind of teaching and governing authority....... O_O

No, we don't believe that the Pope of Rome has any jurisdiction outside his own See. We have no use for a Universal Bishop and we never have had. Four fifths of the Church prior to the Schism agreed, one fifth, Rome, did not, but dig back a bit further and you'll see Rome didn't agree either. The claims to universal jurisdiction are later developments.

You believe in Apostolic Succesion.. But the Pope has no authority >.<

The Pope of Rome has no Apostolic Succession in the Orthodox sense as he does not preech the Catholic faith. If he did, he would have authority over his own See only and be first in honour amongst the Patriarchs, exactly as the Ecumenical Patriarch is for us. You really ought not to try and tell me what we believe when I am Orthodox and you are clearly ignorant of our faith.

Organizations need leaders if they are to hang together, and if Christ’s Church is a visible (Which it is ) Church, then it needs a single earthly leader

We have leaders. They're called Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops. We've managed for 2000 years without a single leader (no we never accepted Rome's jurisdictional authority, contra many ahistorical Roman claims) and as I noted, we are united in faith to a far greater degree than your Church. As an example, I know many Uniates, except for 'being in communion with Rome' their faith is identical to mine - they regject the filioque as heresy, reject the Immaculate Conception, reject, in fact, all the post Schism innovations of Rome including Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. How, then, is your Church one? Such a situation would be impossible in mine. You could not be Orthodox and teach that the filioque is not heretical, for instance, or that the Pope of Rome is infallible.

if Peter were the rock Christ speaks of in Matthew 16:18, this would make him the earthly leader of the Church in Jesus’ absence....... And the Leadership was handed down thru Apostolic succesion

Big if, though. The person we see acting with authority (and that only in council) in Scripture, is not Peter but James and as I pointed out and you've provided no evidence to counter, the majority of the Fathers do not uphold Rome's opinion on the matter of Peter as the Rock. Even if they did, it's a long stretch to get from there to the Papacy. We have a See founded directly by Peter (Antioch). Her bishops are obviously Peter's successors, so even if authority passed to his successors (and never mind the Patristic view of the whole episcopate as successors to Peter) why should any special priveleges be unique to those successors sitting in Rome?

Now yes i will say Your church is Apostolic in a sence.... But to ignore the popes Authority.... Uh uh

An authority only ever claimed unilaterally by him centuries later, denounced by a great saint who was himself a Pope of Rome, and acceptance of which would require that we accede to the demands of a single man even if he were a heretic (and yes you've had at least one heretic Pope)? To ignore this putative monarchical power seems the only sensible thing to do, and certainly the only one consistant with the ecclesiology of the early Church, as even your current Pope appears to have acknowledged.

James

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by athanasius

Amen!! Amen! Amen! excellent points! The Orthodox really fall flat on thier face when all the evidence is looked at historically and especially biblically(which they always seem to ignore when I want to exegete Matthew 16 13-19). Good points!

Please, do enlighten me about our errors. I always have to laugh when I see such comments as this. I for one fail to see how anyone with a grasp of Church history can fail to reject the claims of Rome. As others have pointed out, we all see things from our own perspectives, but when you say things are so clear you are only showing your own ignorance. Either that or you are seeking to paint me as ignorant (and I'll cheerfully take you on on Church history any time to prove that I'm not) or as insincere as, if I really choose to reject Rome wilfully despite such 'clear' evidence then what could my faith be worth? Thankfully there is at least one RC here (Victor) who is neither ignorant nor insulting. It would be good if the rest of you took a leaf out of his book.

James

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by gnostic

From what I understand, the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox have the same beginning, namely Constantine the Great. I don't know when the schism began, to form two separate churches. I am not that good with early Christian history.

Not this again. The Catholic faith does not begin with Constantine. For anyone to suggest it does is to display ignorance of the facts. My faith is amply described and documented by the ante-Nicene Fathers and Constantine himself was an Arian sympathiser at the time of the Council of Nicea, so please explain who the Catholic faith started with him.

Catholic Church was certainly not the first church. Ancient (Christian) Gnosticism certainly existed before Catholic, but Gnosticism is certainly not the first too.

No. Gnosticism is pre-Christian and hence earlier, but the 'Christian' flavours of it, as demonstrated amply by the relative age of their texts, are clearly a later development.

James

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by TruthInCatholocism

I would Actually like to start a debate about Catholic Church as the First Christian Church see where it goes

Curious to know why it should important for Christians or considered a worthwhile subject for debate. Doesn't God show you first?

[Scuba Pete]

James,

Thanks for the insight on what Catholic means and where it came from.

Everyone,

I would suggest that in the scriptures, churches were autonomous. Their names were not derived from their flavor of Christianity, but by their location. That's why they were called names like the church in Corinth, the church in Laodicea, the churches in Galatia, and the list goes ON.

These names did not indicate different denominations within them but ONLY different locations. Were there differences in actual beliefs? Undoubtedly. Did it really matter to the rest of the churches? Only if these beliefs included obvious sins or strayed significantly from the Gospel. In fact Paul talked about the "stronger" being sensitive to the "weaker".

The "ecclesia" or the called out was NEVER meant to be a building or an organization. The ecclesia is an organism. It is not defined by doctrine or synod, but by LOVE!The connection is one of the Spirit that transcends doctrinal, cultural or economic differences. It has but ONE HEAD: Jesus. It has but one COUNSELOR: The Spirit.

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. NIV

Here is the BIGGEST issue I have with this squabbling about who is the "FIRST CHURCH": it's simply unholy. This is not being done as some sort of academic quest, but as a tool to prove that this sect or that sect somehow has DOMINION over the rest of Christendom via their primacy. It's boasting, pure and simple and it's simply gross.

The body of Christ, the ecclesia, consists of Jesus' disciples. It doesn't matter if they are Jewish, Germanic, Asian, Methodist or Catholic. These are MAN MADE descriptors and have little bearing on your relationship with God. Being Catholic does not automatically make you a disciple and neither does it prevent you from being one.

So bicker all you want about WHO is the greatest or first in the Kingdom. I am confident that Jesus is not pleased with this kind of controversy.

[TruthInCatholocism]

First......

I will not argue the root of a term Catholic does mean according to (kata-) the whole (holos)

But in early Christian Documents we find the term being used in colloguialism....

Seing as the orthordox basis its roots as far back as the early documents.....lets look at them O_O because what your doing is what moth non Catholics do...using the term out of context..compared to the context the early church used it in >.<

Ignatius of Antioch


"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains . Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp


"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).


The Muratorian Canon


"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church (Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).


Tertullian


"Where was [the heretic] Marcion, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antonius for the most part—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 30 [A.D. 200]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected.
. . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another" (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).


Council of Nicaea I

"But those who say: ‘There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not,’ and ‘before he was born, he was not,’ and ‘because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes" (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari [Novatians], that is, ‘the Clean,’ if at any time they come to the Catholic Church, it has been decided by the holy and great council that, provided they receive the imposition of hands, they remain among the clergy. However, because they are accepting and following the doctrines of the catholic and apostolic Church, it is fitting that they acknowledge this in writing before all; that is, both that they communicate with the twice married and with those who have lapsed during a persecution" (Canon 8).

"Concerning the Paulianists who take refuge with the Catholic Church, a decree has been published that they should be fully baptized. If, however, any of these in times past have been in the clerical order, if indeed they have appeared spotless and above reproach, after being baptized, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church" (Canon 9).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description" (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).

[TruthInCatholocism]

"And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God" (ibid., 18:26).

sorry post was to big Pasting here O_O


The Apostles’ Creed

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen" (Apostles’ Creed [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term "Catholic"]).

Council of Constantinople I


"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).

Augustine

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

...

""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).


Early Church historian JND. Kelly ( a non-Catholic more specifically protestant) says: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general.' . . . in the latter half of the second century