Are there any other christian church as old

[Descipleof1]

Led Zeppelin75:

You were exactly right up until your last couple of statements. This “judeo-christian church” is part of the oldest Christian churches to ever exist. However, they don’t exist anymore. “Non-denomational” is not the same either (if that’s what you ment). The universal(catholic) christian church was never united. The Roman branch (Catholic (with capitol “C”)) was definitly not the first church to exist, they do claim so however. It is also very unlikely that Peter was ever in Rome. The Orthodox churches have more credibility to this title, but theirs is not the case either. The “Jerusalem Council” likely did not ever exist, although it’s claimed to have. Even if it did, it’s churches are done with, gone. Hence, there is no church in existance today that can claim to be the church actually founded by the apostles. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

And there you have it, Martin Sheen is an idiot!

 

[Descipleof1]

RBushlow:

Led,

You sincerely need to do some homework. Virtually every serious scholar whether Protestant, Catholic, or secular, agrees that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points to Peter being martyred and buried in Rome. They have even identified the spot where he was killed.

.

Not to dipute you but could you provide me some proof to broaden my views?

 

[jimmy]

Descipleof1:

Not to dipute you but could you provide me some proof to broaden my views?

Ignatius of Antioch

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth

“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (*Letter to Pope Soter *[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Not to dipute you but could you provide me some proof to broaden my views?

For a brief overview of the evidence, see the following Catholic Answers tracts:

“Was Peter in Rome?”

“Peter’s Roman Residency”

The most thoroughly well-documented study available in print, as I noted earlier, is Stephen K. Ray’s Upon This Rock: Saint Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church.

 

[jimmy]

Gaius

“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (*Disputation with Proclus *[A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Clement of Alexandria

“The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (*Sketches *[A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Tertullian

“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *36 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (ibid., 32:2).

“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood” (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).

 

[jimmy]

**The Little Labyrinth

**

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (*The Little Labyrinth *[A.D. 211], in Eusebius, *Church History *5:28:3).

The Poem Against the Marcionites

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (*Poem Against the Marcionites *276–284 [A.D. 267]).

catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

 

[jimmy]

“Was Peter ever in Rome?”
bringyou.to/apologetics/num13.htm

I like the way Phil Porvaznik presents this. He presents it like a case in court.

 

[Kurt_G]

Led Zeppelin75:

…The “Jerusalem Council” likely did not ever exist, although it’s claimed to have. Even if it did, it’s churches are done with, gone. Hence, there is no church in existance today that can claim to be the church actually founded by the apostles. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

Some folks might wish Acts 15 didn’t exist, but, well, it does.
Some folks apparent mistrust of the Jerusalem Council is certainly understood, if a person is intent on showing *that early Christianity had no authoritative structure in place, *because Holy Scripture plainly shows otherwise.

But Led, you carry your mistrust to an extreme, when **you suggest that Acts 15 of Holy Scripture is a lie, a total fabrication! **(Sorry, I didn’t mean to shout)

Please, at least keep the faith that Holy Scripture exists as it is, and work from there. If you don’t like a direction that some Scripture may be taking you, just put that subject on a back burner in your mind for a while…

As for the early Church authority being “done with” and “gone”, some of us may not understand your point. Of course, those people are gone, but they have been replaced by succeeding generations of people. (Actually Simon Peter set the pattern at the beginning of Acts, when he interpreted some OT Scripture, and called for the replacement of Judas’ office (or bishopric).

God Bless Us All!

 

[mgy100]

No, the one and only original Christian Church is the Catholic church.

 

[Berean]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Although Christianity existed in these parts before it did in Rome, from the Catholic perspective it was Catholic Christianity, whether or not Peter had yet sojourned to Rome.

Again from this perspective, the current Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is a schismatic and therefore not a true sucessor to Saint James.

This is ridiculous, the term Katholicos wasn’t even used until 107CE by Ignatious. This is so pius, to think that Christianity is Roman and not Jewish shame on you.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

This is ridiculous, the term Katholicos wasn’t even used until 107CE by Ignatious.

What does this have to do with anything?

This is so pius, to think that Christianity is Roman and not Jewish shame on you.

When did I say or even imply this? I specifically said that the Church was Catholic before Peter even set foot in Rome.

 

[Berean]

DominvsVobiscvm:

What does this have to do with anything?

When did I say or even imply this? I specifically said that the Church was Catholic before Peter even set foot in Rome.

You said “Although Christianity existed in these parts before it did in Rome, from the Catholic perspective it was Catholic Christianity, whether or not Peter had yet sojourned to Rome”.
The Jerusalem Church was not Roman Catholic it was Jewish. Just because Rome tried to make everything that happened in the early church a Roman event, does not make it so. Christianity is Jewish and not Roman.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Jerusalem Church was not Roman Catholic it was Jewish.

First off, I didn’t say “Roman Catholic.” Learn to read.

Secondly, the phrase “Roman Catholic” is just that, a phraseology and a convention that many use to designate the Catholic Church, the Church founded by Christ. The phrase “Roman” does not signify a nationality, but rather that someone is in communion with the Sucessor of Saint Peter who, as Divine Providence has had it, happens to be the Bishop of Rome.

So yes, the Church was Catholic even when in Jerusalem.

Christianity is Jewish and not Roman.

Strictly speaking, the Church isn’t Jewish or Roman. She is supranational and transcends all ethnic designations. She is Roman insofar as she is pastored by the Bishop of Rome and the bishops in communion with him, and Jewish insofar as she was prefigured by Israel (from whom came the Messiah).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

digitonomy:

The Church did not exist in the British Isles in Apostolic times, so regardless of anything else, the Church of England cannot claim to be as old as the Holy See.

That does not stop it being Apostolic. To be Apostolic, it needs only to be in organic continuity with a Church of Apostolic origin. Which it was - by some Catholic reckonings, has been ever since the fourth century, before St. Gregory helped it by sending St. Augustine.​

A lot depends on the legitimacy of Rome’s own acts.

Catholicism has not always been the first Christianity in a region - so being the first to enter a region, is not relevant to apostolicity. ##

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Which it was - by some Catholic reckonings, has been ever since the fourth century, before St. Gregory helped it by sending St. Augustine.

Catholic Christianity was in the British Isles long before the missions of Saint Augustine. What happened was that, sometime after the Missions of Saint Patrick, contact was broken due to various geopolitical factors, and it was believed that Christianity was virtually non-existent.

The Celtic Church was Catholic, never formally separated from Rome. Yes, they came to adopt certain distinctive practices (not doctrines), and these were stubbornly held on to even after Roman directives to the contrary, but they were never formally in schism, and several of them (hundreds) have happily been received by the Catholic Church as saints in her calendar.

 

[jimmy]

Berean:

This is ridiculous, the term Katholicos wasn’t even used until 107CE by Ignatious. This is so pius, to think that Christianity is Roman and not Jewish shame on you.

How do you know it wasn’t used until then?

Just because you don’t see it in the writings does not mean it was not used until then.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Catholicism has not always been the first Christianity in a region

It was in the early Church. The one exception I can think of is Germany, which was evangelized by the Arians.

(Ironically, the Church also honors several martyr-saints in her calendar who were Arians, like Saints Nicetas and Sabas, the Goths!)

 

[Berean]

jimmy:

How do you know it wasn’t used until then?

Just because you don’t see it in the writings does not mean it was not used until then.

There are many history books that cover the life of Ignatious. Jesus did not speak Greek so why would he call his Church Katholikos? By your logic any subject that is not covered in God’ Word is fair game for us to enjoy? I don’t think so. If it is not in God’ Word it’s not important.

 

[Berean]

DominvsVobiscvm:

It was in the early Church. The one exception I can think of is Germany, which was evangelized by the Arians.

(Ironically, the Church also honors several martyr-saints in her calendar who were Arians, like Saints Nicetas and Sabas, the Goths!)

There was Christianity in Rome outside of the Roman Church. Many of them were unfairly labled “Heretic” and forced to flee because of persecution.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Berean:

There are many history books that cover the life of Ignatious. Jesus did not speak Greek so why would he call his Church Katholikos? By your logic any subject that is not covered in God’ Word is fair game for us to enjoy? I don’t think so. If it is not in God’ Word it’s not important.

How do you know that Jesus did not speak Greek?