Are there any other christian church as old

  • Thread starter Thread starter scots2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Father Ambrose:

I would not consider any of those sources to be exactly reliable. What’s someone living 800 years after-the-fact gonna have as proof that some Apostle went to Britain?

Let me guess: you also beleove the Byzantine propoganda that Saint Andrew was actually the first bishop of Constantinople?

😛

And I don’t pray to mermaids anymore; now it’s just greyhounds and Buddhas.
 
The word catholic comes from the Greek word Katholikos, meaning “universal.” It was first used by Ignatius of Antioch (about AD 107) to distinguish the entire body of Christians from individual congregations. Subsequently, the word distinguished true believers from false believers? After the break (1054) between the Western church and the Eastern Church, it was used to identify the Western church; the Eastern Church was called orthodox. At the time of the reformation in the 16th century, the Church of Rome claimed the word catholic as its title over the Protestant or Reformed churches. In England, catholic was retained to describe the reformed, national church, although a distinction was made between “Roman” Catholics and members of the Church of England. The term Anglo-Catholic was coined at the time of the Oxford movement in the 19th century. In popular usage, Catholic commonly designates a Christian affiliated with the Church of Rome. Prior to the Edict of Milan (313 AD) the Church in Rome was clandestine and the notion of a Romanist Church had not developed. About 385AD Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and proclaimed universal but there were differences in the Church of Rome and the first century church. Paganism had been introduced and the Romanist church became a conglomerate religion of Christian and pagan rituals. The Roman-Greko Church had new doctrine that separated it from the supposed “heretic” Judeo-Christian Church. This Jewish Christian sect was persecuted for their heretic beliefs and still is to this day. I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.
 
Prior to the Edict of Milan (313 AD) the Church in Rome was clandestine and the notion of a Romanist Church had not developed. About 385AD Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and proclaimed universal but there were differences in the Church of Rome and the first century church. Paganism had been introduced and the Romanist church became a conglomerate religion of Christian and pagan rituals. The Roman-Greko Church had new doctrine that separated it from the supposed “heretic” Judeo-Christian Church. This Jewish Christian sect was persecuted for their heretic beliefs and still is to this day. I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.
Documentation, please?

“Romanist”?

Scoff
 
40.png
scots2:
I was listening to one of the radio shows that had a caller say that there are other christian churches as old as the catholic church and he was not challaged on that point…? Are there??
There are some which separated from the Church very early on. The Coptic come to mind. Of course the Orthodox Churches have their root in the Catholic Church as well. There are no Christian Churches that did not break off from the Catholic Church, however.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
Prior to the Edict of Milan (313 AD) the Church in Rome was clandestine and the notion of a Romanist Church had not developed. About 385AD Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and proclaimed universal but there were differences in the Church of Rome and the first century church.
Please provide some documentation of this in the form of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Century Church Fathers and others. Thank you.
 
I was always taught that the Catholic Church held that the Eastern Orthodox churches have valid apostolic succession, even though they are in schism. Thus the patriarch of Jerusalem is still a valid successor of the apostle James.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Documentation, please?

“Romanist”?

Scoff
Any un biased history of the Church. You check it and prove me wrong
 
uniChristian: That is not how it works. It is not fair nor reasonable to bring up accusations against the Catholic Church and not back them up. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defender. Give us something to work on. The early Fathers, from the late first century on are Catholic. There is no way around it. Check out catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp.

I also recommend the apologetics at catholicoutlook.com and ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM
The writings of the Fathers are available at newadvent.org/fathers/.

God bless,
In Christ,
Tyler
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Let me guess: you also beleove the Byzantine propoganda that Saint Andrew was actually the first bishop of Constantinople?

😛
So what do you think the Apostles did after the Ascension and their pentecostal empowering with the Holy Spirit? Sat in the taverns of Jerusalem and played blackjack? 🙂 No, they did what our Lord expected of them - they became tireless travellers over all the Roman Empire, preaching the good news of Christ. Byzantium, as it was in those days, is much closer to Jerusalem than Rome and was on the coastal route. It was only natural that one of the Apostles would call in there and preach.

St. Andrew, who lived in the Holy Land in the ancient city of Bethsaida, accepted Christ with all his heart and after a discipleship with St. John the Baptist went forth to become one of the greatest missionaries in all history. When the apostles drew lots to determine their sphere of labour for the Saviour, St. Andrew exulted in his mission to preach in Asia Minor, part of Greece, and an area along the coast of the Black Sea, including its gateway, the city now known as Istanbul, or Constantinople.

Wherever St. Andrew went he attracted throngs of people who thirsted for a spiritual knowledge. His message of deliverance was so eloquently convincing, even to hostile minds, that he is credited with having converted countless thousands to Christianity in a day when mass media did not exist. As an apostle, his only tools were his power of oratory and his love for Jesus, and his only press agent was the word of mouth of those privileged to hear his homilies.

St. Andrew came to Jerusalem for the First Synod of the Apostles, about 50 AD, another historic first for him and the other apostles, some of whom he had not yet met. There he rejoiced in joining the great St. Peter together with those but for whom Christianity might never have become the glorious human experience it is today. Out of the Synod, the apostles went forth with renewed vigour to establish the ecclesiastical system.

St. Andrew alone is credited with having set up parishes throughout Asia Minor, in Pontos, Bithynia, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, Scythia (Russia, where he is still regarded as patron saint) and in the capital city of Byzantium. It was in Byzantium that St. Andrew ordained Stachys as first bishop of Byzantium (later Constantinople), thereby establishing an unbroken line of 270 patriarchs down to the present day Patriarch Bartholomeos 1st. From Byzantium, St. Andrew went on to more glory through his compelling oratory and power of healing through Jesus Christ. He eventually found himself in Achaia, in the city of Patras, where he was to suffer death.

St. Andrew committed the grave crime in the eyes of the state of converting Maximilla, wife of the ruler Aigeates, to Christianity. Despite the fact that he was then eighty years old, it was ordered that he be put to death by being nailed upside down to an X-shaped cross. After three days of agony on this vile device, St. Andrew died. The great fisherman had cast his net for Christ for the last time. St. Andrew’s remains were brought to Constantinople two hundred years later and in 1460 his head was given to the pope. On 24 September 1964, in an ecumenical gesture, the head was returned to the people of Patras by the pope.

From
home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Andrew.htm
 
40.png
twf:
uniChristian: That is not how it works. It is not fair nor reasonable to bring up accusations against the Catholic Church and not back them up. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defender. Give us something to work on. The early Fathers, from the late first century on are Catholic. There is no way around it. Check out catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp.

I also recommend the apologetics at catholicoutlook.com and ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM
The writings of the Fathers are available at newadvent.org/fathers/.

God bless,
In Christ,
Tyler
Unbiased please, and by the way what accusations?
 
Father Ambrose:

Of course the Apostles did all they could to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

The thing is, we’ve no proof that they actually got as far as England, or that Saint Andrew actually went to Consantinople.

Pasting some pious piffle from an Orthodox website is hardly “documentation” for such a claim for the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, a claim which itself only dates back to the fifth century.
 
Unbiased please,
Every source will have its biases; what counts is where they get their info from. In other words, from what first-hand sources they can pull documentation, along with what can be known just by reason.
and by the way what accusations?
This rediculous and unsubstantiated paragraph:
About 385AD Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and proclaimed universal but there were differences in the Church of Rome and the first century church. Paganism had been introduced and the Romanist church became a conglomerate religion of Christian and pagan rituals. The Roman-Greko Church had new doctrine that separated it from the supposed “heretic” Judeo-Christian Church. This Jewish Christian sect was persecuted for their heretic beliefs and still is to this day. I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.
Also the word “Romanist” is out-dated, and has long been considered pejorative.
 
Fr Ambrose:
The Orthodox Church claims for herself that she is the “Una Sancta,” the Church of undivided Christendom…
I stand corrected. Thank you.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.
You are really one sad, angry, and hate-filled, bigoted little person aren’t you? Why can’t you just call us Catholic, or even “Roman Catholic” despite the inaccuracy? Why do you have to resort to names? Why are you most uncharitable, contrary to your handle?

For as long as you persist in this unkindness you will not be treated with any measure of credibility. You are a caricature, claiming to be Christian but not living it out. Christians are called to love their enemies, and we aren’t even your enemies.I have many non-Catholic friends who don’t remotely stoop to using language like yours. You’re nothing but a fraud.
 
40.png
JMJ_Pinoy:
Yes. The Orthodox Churches are fully apostolic and are as ancient as we are. In fact, we used to be all the same Church, with the Roman Church as the Western Patriarchate.

Our separation is a very sad thing, because without the both the East and West are missing parts of each other, which it should not be the case. Even though it is remote, I pray that I may live to see the reunification of our Churches.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
I am a member of a Church that is modeled after the Jerusalem Council and my Church is far older that the Romanist Church.
What Church is that, exactly?
 
Yes. The Orthodox Churches are fully apostolic and are as ancient as we are.
Again, not true. They have preserved Apostolic Sucession, yes, but cannot, from a Catholic standpoint, claim to be “as old as we are.” For we Catholics believe that there is only one true Church, and this is the Catholic Church. And this Catholic Church is essentially the same Church today as it was 2000 years ago. The Orthodox Church, then, cannot be the same age as we are. In reality, it only dates back to the time when its various branches went into schism (though today it’s nearly impossible to give a single, precise moment, gradual as this schism was).

It has preserved many, many ancient elements, many from 2000 years ago, but is not itself 2000 years old.

This, more or less, is what the Orthodox would say about us Catholics.
In fact, we used to be all the same Church, with the Roman Church as the Western Patriarchate.
The Catholic Church, all by herself, is that same Church and possesses the fullness of Christianity. She lacks nothing.
 
40.png
uniChristian:
You check it and prove me wrong
You made the contention. Where did you get the information? Did you just make it up yourself or do you have an actual source?

Peace be with you.
 
Ok then, when did Catholicism become the official religion of the Roman Empire?
 
40.png
DavidFilmer:
What Church is that, exactly?
It is a Church of Messianic believers, and we are many. Remember your roots are not Roman Greko but Judeo Christian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top