Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

[SonCatcher]

I’m sorry but I haven’t heard this before, would you mind citing a source?

It’s an old rumor but certainly didn’t happen

Matthew 13:54-57
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.”

If Jesus had traveled as some claim, the people of Nazareth would have assumed that he gained wisdom in his travels. Since they question him they attest that he was always among them. Likewise, Jesus responds that a prophet is honored everywhere except his own home (he testifies that he spent his whole life among them).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Brother, in session III of Chalcedon Leo was addressed to, by Eusebius, as: “The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo…”

newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

Throughout that Council, Leo is the only bishop called “most holy”, “most blessed”, “apostolic”, etc.

It is the ancient Christian religion; not “the most ancient”, or “an ancient”, but the ancient, as God is not the most ancient religious idea of men, but is The Ancient of Days.

However, if we examine the minutes of Ephesus II, we’ll see that Dioscoros is called, “our most holy father Dioscorus, ecumenical archbishop of the great city of Alexandria.” The only times I can see in the council where Pope Leo is called ecumenical archbishop are the appeals written by the plaintiffs who wished to have Ephesus II overturned. It would, of course, be to their benefit to use such flowery language when addressing pope Leo. (now unless I am missing something, the council never refers to pope Leo in such a way, just the plaintiffs)

This usage however, has nothing to do with the official title, “Ecumenical Patriarch,” but rather only has to do with the plaintiffs calling pope Leo the “Universal Patriarch.” The actual title Ecumenical Patriarch comes by way of the Patriarch of Constantinople’s connection with the city of Constantinople, which eventually began to be known as the Ecumenical City. It was only natural that the patriarch residing in the Ecumenical City should become known officially as the Ecumenical Patriarch. It has a completely different connotation from how the word Ecumenical is used in the council of Chalcedon.

Pope Leo was also not the only one to be known as most holy at the council. The problem is that what you linked is a highly abridged edition. Here are a few examples of other bishops being called most holy from a complete translation of the acts:

From the first session:

“85. When it had been received, John presbyter and protonotary said: ‘Another pious decree was sent to our most holy and God-beloved Archbishop Dioscorus, which we have in our hands for the pleasure of your holiness.’”
And here are some readings from the minutes of Ephesus II in which Dioscoros was called most holy:

“200. Stephen bishop of Ephesus said: ‘Since the proposal of our most holy and God-beloved father and Archbishop Dioscorus is a fair one, let it be put into effect.’”
“201. Cyrus bishop of Aphrodisias said: ‘The proposal of the most Godbeloved and holy Archbishop Dioscorus for the reading of the proceedings in the case in the imperial city is both fair and fitting.’”
“213. Atticus bishop of Nicopolis in Epirus Vetus said: ‘Since the proposal of our most holy Archbishop Dioscorus is fitting, let it be put into effect and the minutes be read to all the most holy council to give more accurate information about the points under examination.’”
“215. Uranius bishop of Hemerium in the province of Osrhoene, with Eulogius presbyter of Edessa acting as interpreter, said: ‘The most holy and religious Archbishop Dioscorus has made a fitting proposal that the proceedings at all-fortunate Constantinople about the case in question should first be read.’”

As you know, Dioscoros was later deposed by the council for failing to show up after being summoned three times.

Here they are also in the first session, calling the reposed Archbishop Flavian ‘most holy’:

“293. Athanasius the most devout bishop of Busiris of Tripolis in Egypt said: ‘The most holy Bishop Flavian followed the letters of the most sacred Cyril, and expounded the faith well.’”
“294. Auxonius the most devout bishop of Sebennytus said: ‘The most holy and devout Bishop Flavian thought and spoke in harmony with the teaching of Cyril as contained in the letters of the most sacred Cyril that have been read.’”

There are plenty of other examples of even minor bishops being called “most holy,” “most blessed,” “most God-beloved,” “most devout,” or “most religious” throughout the acts of Chalcedon, so I’m not sure if this is a good argument. The honorific language being applied to pope Leo was pretty standard for all people of high ranking during the time period.

 

[Ambrosian]

Those are good points, Cavaradossi… since it’s hard to say just how much is abridged in the New Advent version, I won’t contest you.

Thanks for showing me up!

 

[Ambrosian]

Sorry, that was a bad metaphor on my part. I meant to compare the two, not to literally say that one is the other. Must use grammar better on the internet, in lieu of the ability to articulate stresses and accents.

As to comments about the Orthodox and Ba’al those are simply rabble rousing and and are not a manner in which we should speak of our fellow Christians in apostolic Churches.

Well, they do claim to worship the true God, but do not follow His most important ecclesiastic command. Think of it: without the Church we would have no sacraments. Without Peter, there is no Church to build on. Denying supremacy goes very deep, if it is let out to run loose…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this thread going to devolve into another “are the Orthodox true Churches or not” discussion?

 

[Ambrosian]

Is this thread going to devolve into another “are the Orthodox true Churches or not” discussion?

Is that usually how this sub-forum goes? If so, then yes. We human beings love our traditions, no matter how ridiculous!

I just don’t know, anyway. I should keep silence, but questions must be asked sometimes.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is that usually how this sub-forum goes? If so, then yes. We human beings love our traditions, no matter how ridiculous!

I just don’t know, anyway. I should keep silence, but questions must be asked sometimes.

Well, anytime the Orthodox is brought into the conversation it ensues a lengthy argument about the Orthodox not recognizing the Pope and all the usual polemics. And usually not by the Eastern Catholics, because we love our Orthodox brethren and yearn that we may be united soon.

Yes, it is an odd tradition in CAF.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought by “traditions” he was referring to the tradition of devolving threads

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, it would be part of the Catechesis of the OP to realize that in the first few hundred years of the Church, there is visibly one Church. Actually until the First Ecumenical Council when we started throwing heretics out of the Church

 

[LayingHands]

I’m sorry but I haven’t heard this before, would you mind citing a source?

In 1887, a Russian traveler/trekker, discovered there were ancient manuscripts which related to and described Our Lord Jesus Christ. As he left the great convent of Himis, he was hoping the Chief Lama would be able to show him the manuscripts, on his return trip, but, an accident occurred and he had to return to the convent, for the setting and mending of a broken leg.

The Chief Lama did indeed provide 2 manuscripts, yellowed by age…and a translator assisted the author, to translate the ancient history…“The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ by Nicholas Notovitch”, was eventually written and between then and 1925, two other sceptics travelled to verify the ancient lama writings…they both were given access and found the exact translation as historical and written by Lama lay monks, who loved and knew Jesus, as the Son of GOD.

I see these ancient manuscripts, along the same lines, of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and or The Lost Gospels…

 

[Skeptic92]

In 1887, a Russian traveler/trekker, discovered there were ancient manuscripts which related to and described Our Lord Jesus Christ. As he left the great convent of Himis, he was hoping the Chief Lama would be able to show him the manuscripts, on his return trip, but, an accident occurred and he had to return to the convent, for the setting and mending of a broken leg.

The Chief Lama did indeed provide 2 manuscripts, yellowed by age…and a translator assisted the author, to translate the ancient history…“The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ by Nicholas Notovitch”, was eventually written and between then and 1925, two other sceptics travelled to verify the ancient lama writings…they both were given access and found the exact translation as historical and written by Lama lay monks, who loved and knew Jesus, as the Son of GOD.

I see these ancient manuscripts, along the same lines, of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and or The Lost Gospels…

cite the source, and the evidence supporting the authenticity of the manuscripts, else I will have to say you are spreading hearsay…

 

[1AugustSon7]

Since Christianity itself is divided into three main branches, which are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism…

Roman Catholicism is older than most religions now practiced, even if you count its birthday, so to speak, with Pentecost or the first Christmas or the Incarnation. Correctly speaking, it was the very first Faith, and it began, depending on how you reckon it, when God promised to Eve the Saviour, Who would be born of “her seed” (i.e., in the flesh; this is the one and only time the Scriptures speek of a woman as having a seed), which Divine Promise is called the proto-evangelium (i.e., the First Gospel). Holding fast to that promise was the Faith and religion held and practiced by Adam and Eve and passed on to their children, with most eventually forgetting or abandoning it, but a faithful lineage held fast to it. These were all descendants from Seth. It was the Faith of the Patriarchs, Moses and the Israelites, who would later recognize the fulfillment of that Promise in the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Apostles He appointed then spread the Gospel throughout the world.

Modern Judaism, for example, is a consequence of the destruction of the Temple in circa A.D. 70 and the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, which officially cut-off Christians from the Synagogue and began the Rabbinacal system as we know it today. The Jewish Talmud, for example, would not be finished until Medieval times.

Islam developed in the 7th century A.D, though it borrowed much from the mesh of religions in the Arabian peninsular area, including Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and perhaps even elements from Zoroastrianism and other local, traditional pagan cults.

Eastern Orthodoxy came into being in the 11th century A.D.

Protestantism, 16th century A.D.

 

[RyanBlack]

Roman Catholicism is older than most religions now practiced, even if you count its birthday, so to speak, with Pentecost or the first Christmas or the Incarnation. Correctly speaking, it was the very first Faith, and it began, depending on how you reckon it, when God promised Eve the Saviour, which Promise is called the proto-evangelium (i.e., the First Gospel). Holding fast to that promise was the Faith and religion held and practiced by Adam and Eve and passed on to their children, with most eventually forgetting or abandoning it, but a faithful lineage held fast to it. These were all descendants from Seth. It was the Faith of the Patriarchs, Moses and the Israelites, who would later recognize the fulfillment of that Promise in the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Apostles He appointed then spread the Gospel throughout the world.

Modern Judaism, for example, is a consequence of the destruction of the Temple in circa A.D. 70 and the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, which officially cut-off Christians from the Synagogue and began the Rabbinacal system as we know it today. The Jewish Talmud, for example, would not be finished until Medieval times.

Islam developed in the 7th century A.D, though it borrowed much from the mesh of religions in the Arabian peninsular area, including Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and perhaps even elements from Zoroastrianism and other local, traditional pagan cults.

Eastern Orthodoxy came into being in the 11th century A.D.

Protestantism, 16th century A.D.

Eastern Orthodoxy did not come into being in the 11th century A.D. (or any date subsequent to that either). Furthermore, “Roman” does not define the whole of Catholicism.

 

[Skeptic92]

Roman Catholicism is older than most religions now practiced, even if you count its birthday, so to speak, with Pentecost or the first Christmas or the Incarnation. Correctly speaking, it was the very first Faith, and it began, depending on how you reckon it, when God promised to Eve the Saviour, Who would be born of her seed (the only time the Scriptures speek of a woman as having a seed), which Divine Promise is called the proto-evangelium (i.e., the First Gospel). Holding fast to that promise was the Faith and religion held and practiced by Adam and Eve and passed on to their children, with most eventually forgetting or abandoning it, but a faithful lineage held fast to it. These were all descendants from Seth. It was the Faith of the Patriarchs, Moses and the Israelites, who would later recognize the fulfillment of that Promise in the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Apostles He appointed then spread the Gospel throughout the world.

Modern Judaism, for example, is a consequence of the destruction of the Temple in circa A.D. 70 and the Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90, which officially cut-off Christians from the Synagogue and began the Rabbinacal system as we know it today. The Jewish Talmud, for example, would not be finished until Medieval times.

Islam developed in the 7th century A.D, though it borrowed much from the mesh of religions in the Arabian peninsular area, including Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and perhaps even elements from Zoroastrianism and other local, traditional pagan cults.

Eastern Orthodoxy came into being in the 11th century A.D.

Protestantism, 16th century A.D.

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy BOTH came into being (as we know them) in 1054, when Constantinople and Rome excommunicated each other (with Romes excommunication of Constantinople being of very shaky legality) the Catholic Church (as in the universal Church,a union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy) came into being in 33AD when Christ said 'thou art Peter…"

 

[followingtheway]

Well both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were around long before Protestantism. All Protestant denominations all stem from the Reformation in 1517 A.D.

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians separated from each other in 1054 A.D.

Both of them claim they were the oldest Christians, but Protestants claim they are restoration of Early or Biblical Christianity.

 

[A_G]

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy BOTH came into being (as we know them) in 1054, when Constantinople and Rome excommunicated each other (with Romes excommunication of Constantinople being of very shaky legality) the Catholic Church (as in the universal Church,a union between Catholicism and Orthodoxy) came into being in 33AD when Christ said 'thou art Peter…"

True. However Catholics continue to recognize and are under the spiritual leadership of the Successor of Peter…

 

[Big_Feet]

Since Christianity itself is divided into three main branches, which are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism…

Being that Jesus started the Catholic Church in AD 33, I think the answer is yes.
The orthodox separated from Rome in the 11th century, and the protestant reformation began in the 15th century.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Eastern Orthodoxy did not come into being in the 11th century A.D. (or any date subsequent to that either). Furthermore, “Roman” does not define the whole of Catholicism.

The Roman distinction you speak of does not make sense in the post-reformation English lexicon. Roman Catholicism is a synonym for Catholicism and includes Catholics of any Rite, whether Eastern or Western. It denotes especially filial obedience to the Pope and the Papacy:

I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses…

I acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church, **the mother and mistress of all the churches **[1].

Obviously the above use of Roman does not exclude the Eastern Rites of the Church.

Notice also that “Roman” replaced “One” in the traditional Nicene formula of “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This was done, I am told, at the insistence of the English representation at the First Vatican Council, from which Council the above excerpt is taken. Apparently they insisted on emphasizing the Roman-ness of the Church even at a time when Roman Catholic was often used pejoratively by the majority of English speakers. They wanted to emphasize that the Church’s Unity or One-ness was immediately connected to filial obedience to the Holy See.

Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things
The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God…

Again, Roman is clearly taken for the whole Church, unless you want me to believe that the First Vatican Council wanted us to believe that only the Church in Rome “believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God”.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy BOTH came into being (as we know them) in 1054"

In the Roman Catholic Church nothing changed in or as a consequence of the Great Schism of A.D. 1054.

Your presentation of history gives the misleading impression that something or anything changed, or as you put it “came into being”, in the Catholic Church in A.D. 1054. Nothing changed and, as they say, business went on as usual; in fact, Catholics simply called themselves Catholics until Protestantism emerged, and as Saint Augustine noted was common even in his own time, then did “all [the] heretics wish to style themselves Catholics”… especially in England. Thence did being peculiarly Roman (i.e., faithful to the Holy See) become a life or death issue.

If you can tell me what changed in A.D. 1054 in the Roman Catholic Church such that it required a distinction in name to differentiate from a previous time or practice, then I will cease my protest.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The Roman distinction you speak of does not make sense in the post-reformation English lexicon. Roman Catholicism is a synonym for Catholicism and includes Catholics of any Rite, whether Eastern or Western. It denotes especially filial obedience to the Pope and the Papacy:

I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses…

I acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church, **the mother and mistress of all the churches **[1].

Obviously the above use of Roman does not exclude the Eastern Rites of the Church.

Notice also that “Roman” replaced “One” in the traditional Nicene formula of “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This was done, I am told, at the insistence of the English representation at the First Vatican Council, from which Council the above excerpt is taken. Apparently they insisted on emphasizing the Roman-ness of the Church even at a time when Roman Catholic was often used pejoratively by the majority of English speakers. They wanted to emphasize that the Church’s Unity or One-ness was immediately connected to filial obedience to the Holy See.

Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things
The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God…

Again, Roman is clearly taken for the whole Church, unless you want me to believe that the First Vatican Council wanted us to believe that only the Church in Rome “believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God”.

I believe there’s a whole thread in this forum about what is meant by ‘Roman Catholic’. Some of our Eastern brothers resent the label, so you might want to be a bit more circumspect about that.

I think ‘Catholic Church’ might be sufficient to differentiate ourselves. The Orthodox recognise that label as well. In my opinion, calling somebody ‘Roman Catholic’ refers to their association to the Church under the Bishop of Rome, just as calling somebody ‘Maronite Catholic’ refers to their association to the Church under Maronite Patriarch.