Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

[1AugustSon7]

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.

Thank-you. I think I am starting to get a grip on the issue here and will correct my terms. For me, Roman Catholicism is just Roman Catholicism. I didn’t expect someone to object to the term.

 

[Filii_Dei]

In the West 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 West 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 West such that it required a distinction in name to differentiate from a previous time or practice, then I will cease my protest.

By that principle, then nothing has changed in the East as a consequence of the Great Schism. However, realistically, practices have changed to some degree in both the Catholic and Orthodox Chuches even long after the Schism. Surely by that principle you do not mean to say that with every new proclamation by the Pope, the Catholic Church becomes a new church?

I believe what you mean is that our devotion to Sacred/Holy Tradition has not changed?

In any case, what we mean by both of them coming into being after the Schism is the labels and identity. Before, both Western and Eastern Churches could identify ourselves with each other, but no more. Since the schism, the Western Church called itself ‘Catholic’, and the Eastern Church called itself ‘Orthodox’. Without judgement given to which is the ‘true Church’, this is why we say that both came into being in 1054, although both are also two millenia old.

 

[1AugustSon7]

By that principle, then nothing has changed in the East as a consequence of the Great Schism.

But something did change:

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .
What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
​

Also,

It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

 

[Filii_Dei]

But something did change:

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .

This Fourth Council of Constantinople (that of the year 869), was only accepted by the Roman Church. It involved the deposition of Photius I as the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom the Orthodox Church still recognise as the rightful Patriarch. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the Orthodox do recognise the primacy of Rome. What they dispute, however, is his supremacy, or the extent of that supremacy.

What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]

Again, this is a difficult judgement call to make. In this same council, the Greeks also accepted the Filioque, but this has since been rejected by the Eastern Church. In fact, the Pope now calls for the Eastern Catholics to recite the creed without the Filioque. In any case, the Orthodox have a dim view of this council, and regard the Greeks who participated in it as traitors.

Also,

It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

I sympathise with this view. Councils are important in defending the faith. However, if those in attendance are not considered true representatives of all the churches, there is a tendency for the churches in question to reject them.

 

[LayingHands]

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

The source is the author himself from 1887 and the other 2 men, who also authenticated the ancient manuscripts…were Swami Abhedananda (a well known and respected Swami/Guru/Teacher from India), he also wrote his own book of travels, and titled “Kashmir O Tibetti”, he tells of his own personal visit to the Himis convent, and also saw and translated the same manuscripts. Essentially, the translation is identical to the author’s original translated text, from 1887.

In 1925, Nichlas Roerich, also arrived at the Himis convent and asked to see and translate the same manuscripts, identically, as both the author and Swami Abhedananda, before him…so I have again given you the three, independent persons who verified the existence and authenticity of the 2 manuscripts, relating to Jesus’s travels in Tibet and Kashmir.

I have never heard that the Chief Lama of the Himis Convent (gonpa), denied anything. The manuscripts are copies of ancient history and can also be located in the archives of Lhassa Monastery. Per the Chief Lama there are certain other monasteries which possess old copies and translations of those chronicles too.

And unless you can dispute these personal verifications…do not pass a blind sentence of heresy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Challenge accepted. First there was the unilateral addition of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed by Germanic Popes. Secondly, there was the denial that the Roman Emperor of the East was even Roman, a true diplomatic slight coming from the new Germanic masters of Rome, who installed their own in the papacy.
From Francis Dvornik’s Byzantium and the Roman Primacy:

During the pontificate of the Germanic Popes who had been installed by the Ottos and by Henry II, some innovations that were strange to the Byzantines were introduced in Rome.The most important was the introduction of the Filioque which was officially inserted into the Nicene Creed. It appears that Pope Sergius IV (1009-1012) had sent to Byzantium, with the customary synodical letter on taking possession of the Papal throne, his profession of faith containing the Filioque. Naturally, this resulted in a refusal on the part of the Patriarch Sergius II and the name of the Pope was not inscribed in the Byzantine diptychs, the list of the names of those to be commemorated during the divine service. It is possible that it was from this moment that the Byzantines discontinued their ancient practice of inscribing the names of the Roman patriarchs in their diptychs. This incident was later regarded by some as the beginning of the schism. Nicetas of Nicaea who in the eleventh century wrote a treatise on the Greek schism, speaks of a rupture which took place under Pope Sergius, but he admitted that he was not aware of the reason for it.

Nevertheless this incident was neither the denial of the Roman Primacy on the part of Byzantium nor, to tell the truth, the beginning of a schism. To be sure, since the end of the tenth century the two Churches had not had many points of contact but they were still not enemies. However, this estrangement of the two worlds continued to grow. Less and less did the Westerners understand the byzantine concept of a universal Christian Empire and in the West, the idea that only the Emperor crowned by the Pope in Rome was the true successor of the Caesars began to receive general acceptance. The existence of a Roman Emperor in Constantinople had all but faded from memory.

In spite of all this, Byzantium remained close to Rome, as long as she still had possessions in the south of Italy, in spite of her refusal or her incapacity to defend them. As long as there existed in South Italy this bridge between Byzantium and the West, it was still possible that contacts between Constantinople and Rome could become more frequent and more cordial. Unfortunately, this bridge was suddenly broken down by the conquest of the Byzantine territory in Italy by the Normans. This event was to have consequence more disastrous for the relations between the East and the West than the destruction of the bridge of Illyricum by the Avars and the Slavs in the sixth century.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Then there was the reformation of the eleventh century, culminating with the document Dictatus Papae, and the bull Libertas ecclesiae, circulated during the Gregorian reforms, which while appropriate for lessening the impact of Germanic control of the Western Church, was inappropriate for the East, which did not suffer from the problems caused by Frankish hegemony. The attempt by the West to force these reforms on the East was essentially the straw which broke the camel’s back, driving the two sides, East and West, to break communion because the West’s outlook had been transformed while the East’s remained almost the same as it had been in the millennium before.

From the same book:

One other circumstance was destined to bear an even greater responsibility for the separation which grew between the two Churches. This was the profound transformation which took place in Western Christendom as a result of the introduction of certain Germanic customs into ecclesiastical organization. The Germanic conception of real property was fundamentally different from that of the Romans and the Greeks. Being incapable of conceiving the possibility that an institution could become the owner of land or of real estate, the Germanic nations continued to regard the man who had built it, as the only owner of real property or of a building. The application of this idea to ecclesiastical institutions was the cause of a revolutionary development in the Western Church. Thus it was that the bishops lost the administrative control of churches which they had not themselves constructed. The founders considered the churches built at their expense as their own property and they arrogated to themselves the right of naming the priests who were to be charged with their administration.

This system of privately owned churches (Eigenkirchen) was also applied in France to abbeys and bishoprics. When it was joined to the feudal system, it permitted the kings of the Ottonian dynasty to transform the church of Germany into a “Church of the Empire” (Reichskirche), totally under the control of the King and the Emperor.

As a consequence of this state of affairs, Western Christendom became, in the eleventh century, a collection of autonomous and national churches, over which the princes, as “kings and priests,” not only claimed administration but also ownership. As a result, the central power, the papacy, the very backbone of the Church, found itself deprived of its prerogatives. The abuses which resulted therefrom—simony, lay investiture, a married clergy—were responsible for the deterioration of the Church of the West in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

This provoked a reaction. Unfortunately this reaction—a reform movement—did not begin at Rome, the center of Christendom, but in the confines of France and the Empire, in Lorraine and in Burgundy, where the intervention of the Emperor or the King was not normally to be expected. The reformers saw no other remedy than the restoration of the power and influence of the papacy as a means of freeing the Church from the stifling influence of the lay power. The principle was fundamentally good. As an antidote to the Lay ownership of churches, the reformers invoked the ancient principle of Roman law according to which a moral person had the capacity to possess land and real property.

Unfortunately, these reformers were totally unaware of the peculiar situation of the Eastern churches and they naturally wished to extend everywhere the direct right of intervention of the papacy—even in the East where the churches had enjoyed a good deal of autonomy in running their internal affairs according to their own custom. In wishing to extend celibacy of the clergy which they were enforcing in the West, they forgot the practice of the East that priests were married. They also forgot that there were no churches under lay ownership in the East and that no reform was necessary in this matter. In preaching obedience to Rome and in enforcing observance of Roman customs they took no account whatever of the fact that the East had different customs and different rites.

An incident that took place in 1024 shows us well the danger for relations between the two Churches which could arise from the ignorance of the Byzantine mentality in reforming circles. Raoul Glaber, a Benedictine monk who spent some time in various monasteries, especially at Dijon under Abbot William and at Cluny under Abbot St. Odilo, reports in his chronicle that the reformers were very much disturbed when they learned “that the Byzantines wished, without any justification, to obtain Roman recognition of their supremacy.” That is the way he entitled the chapter in which he told the story. It is altogether probable that this is the way in which the reformers interpreted the intention of the Byzantines. However, even according to Glaber, the matter was not quite as scandalous as people wished to believe it was. According to him:

Around the year of Our Lord 1024, the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as the Emperor Basil and some other Greeks, decided to obtain from the Roman Pontiff authorization for the Church of Constantinople to be called “universal” in all parts of the territory which came under it, the same as the Church of Rome was considered in the entire world.

 

[Filii_Dei]

And unless you can dispute these personal verifications…do not pass a blind sentence of heresy.

Unless you can prove these ‘personal verifications’, I’m afraid we won’t be paying any attention.

Not to mention that this is utterly irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Continued:

What are we to make of this piece of information? It is altogether likely that the Emperor Basil II (976-1025) had approached Pope John XIX (1024-1032), with a view to putting an end to the long controversy on the relative position of the two sees in the hierarchy of the Church. At this time, he was at the very summit of his power. After having stopped the advance of the Turks in Asia Minor and subdued Bulgaria, he dreamed of reconquering Sicily which was in the hands of the Arabs and of extending his influence over central Italy. In the accomplishment of this plan, an alliance with the Pope could not but have been advantageous. Basically, it was only a question of reissuing the ordinances of Justinian II, of Phocas and of Justinian I. If we may believe Raoul Glaber himself, the Greeks were ready to recognize the supreme power of the Roman see over the whole Church and even over Constantinople. But the intervention of the reformers—the Abbot William had addressed to the Pope a rather stiff letter—seems to have intimidated the Pope, for whom, incidentally, Glaber did not have a very high opinion. As a result, this last attempt at agreement was to be a failure.

After these first reforms, we have the famous event in 1054, in which Cardinal Humbert, among other things, falsely accused the Eastern Christians of deleting the Filioque from the Creed and of simony, and condemned their married clergy with long untrimmed hair and beards, all of which he believed to be the cause of the investiture controversy in the West. Essentially, Cardinal Humbert had ignorantly condemned the East for doing as it always did, and not adopting the changes made by the West. Perhaps had the West been more accommodating to the traditions of the East (a situation which was not reversed until the 20th century) instead of forcing its reforms upon the Eastern Christians, the schism might not have ever happened.

Instead, however, the rude Cardinal came into Constantinople, attempted to have her Patriarch deposed, attacked her traditions, and when he found that the people (predictably so) supported their Patriarch and traditions, laid down a bull of excommunication which so shocked the people and the Emperor that the Emperor abandoned his plans to forge an alliance with Rome against the Normans and called a synod which condemned and publicly burned the bull.

After the election of Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), the nephew of Emperor Henry III, and quite favorable to reform, the Reform Movement took root also in Rome. The Pope had brought along with him to Rome some of the most zealous reformers, notably Humbert whom he named a Cardinal and Frederick of Lorraine who became Chancellor of the Roman Church. The Romans extended their activities over South Italy into the Byzantine territory where were found both Greek and Latin communities. Taking their stand on the privileges granted by the Donation of Constantine—this forged document had become on the of the most "decisive arguments for the extension of papal power—the Pope tried to extend his direct influence over the whole of Italy. He also laid claim to Sicily, a territory considered to be Byzantine although occupied by the Arabs and he appointed an archbishop there. He convoked a Synod at Siponto in 1050 where a great number of decrees were voted with a view to furthering the reform. Some of these decrees were directed against Greek liturgical usages which had been established in Italy. The reforming clergy, thereupon, launched into an active campaign in all of the provinces, including Apulia, which was a Byzantine area.

The Greeks began to be disturbed. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius (1043-1058), an ambitious and haughty man, who had little love for Latins reacted with counter measures. Since it seemed that the Latins intended to replace the Greek liturgy by the Latin rite in Italy, he gave orders that all the Latin establishments in Constantinople must adopt the Greek rite under penalty of being closed. Aiming at he Greeks in Apulia, he ordered Leo, the Archbishop of Ochrida, to compose a treatise defending the Greek rite and putting the blame on Latin usage.

Leo sent his famous letter to the Latin bishop of Trani, in Byzantine territory, in which he criticized Latin practices and in particular the use of unleavened bread in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is interesting to note that he made no mention of the Filioque. This letter was circulated at the worst possible moment. It served to increase the anti-Latin grievances in Apulia at a time when, because of the advance of the Normans who threatened both papal and Byzantine territory, a military and political alliance between the Pope and Byzantium was absolutely necessary. In order to win over the Latin population, the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1059), appointed as governor of the Byzantine territory a Latin named Argyrus who engineered a pact with the Pope directed against the Normans. This caused the animosity of the Patriarch to grow still stronger because Argyrus was his personal enemy. Unfortunately, the papal and Byzantine armies were defeated by the Normans in June, 1053 and the Pope was taken prisoner.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Continued:

Meantime, Humbert, at the request of the Pope, had composed a letter of reply to Leo of Ochrida, a long treatise full of abusive criticism against Greek usages. This treatise was not directed to Constantinople because, in the interval, the Emperor had sent a new embassy to conclude an anti-Normal alliance and he persuaded the Patriarch to address a friendly letter to the Pope. The Pope then decided to sent Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine and Peter of Amalfi as legates to Constantinople. Humbert prepared a second reply to the attacks of Leo. This one was shorter but in the circumstances, it was still extremely undiplomatic. He tried to include in it everything that he had said in his former treatise and the Patriarch could not help but be offended because the Cardinal expressed doubts as to the legitimacy of his election, doubts which had no justification whatever. Humbert was annoyed also at the use of the title “ecumenical” which, he said, violated the rights of Alexandria and of Antioch who had precedence over Constantinople because of their direct connection with the Apostle Peter. He further said that this title was a usurpation of the right which belonged to Rome, the Mother of all the sees. Once again, then, the Petrine argument was launched against the see of Constantinople.

The patriarch, who had been expecting a friendly letter in reply to his own, which had been short and polite was surprised and suspected machinations on the part of his enemy Argyrus. He was offended by the attitude of Humbert whom he considered to be arrogant and he refused to continue the negotiations with the legates, declaring that they were not sent by the Pope at all but by Argyrus.

In reply, Humbert took the offensive, trusting, no doubt, in the assistance of the Emperor and probably encouraged by Argyrus in an attempt to depose the Patriarch. He published the first, very long letter which was translated into Greek as a sort of pamphlet against the Patriarch. In another dispute with the Monk Nicetas Stethatos, who had written a treatise in defense of the Greek usages attacked by the Cardinal, Humbert was the one to bring up the question of Filioque. His reply to the criticism of Latin usage which the Greek monk had discussed was impassioned and offensive. The Emperor, however, who was most anxious to bring about an agreement with the Pope, forced Nicetas to repudiate his writings and to humble himself before Humbert.

The principles of the reformers became clear to the Byzantines for the first time in the pamphlets and letters of Humbert. Up to that time they had not realized the changes that had taken place in the mentality of the roman Church. In all frankness, they simply did not understand them. If we consider the development that had taken place in Byzantine thinking with regard to the papacy and its position in the Church, we see that the extension of the absolute and direct authority of the Pope over all the bishops and the faithful such as it was preached by the reformers was, to the Byzantine mind, nothing less than a complete denial of the tradition with which they had been familiar. This extension would lead to the abolition of the autonomy of their churches. The liturgical uses of Byzantium were considered at least suspect, if not condemned outright. This is why the argument, which Humbert drew from the Donation of Constantine to support his view, was unacceptable to the Byzantines.

What they did find particularly offensive was the mode of behavior of the legates, so much so that far from turning them against the patriarchs as Humbert had hoped, the whole of the Byzantine clergy closed ranks around their leader. What Humbert had to say to them was much too new for them and his criticism of Greek usages offended their patriotic sentiments. Humbert lost all patience and even though he knew that the Pope had died, he composed his famous letter of excommunication against the Patriarch, laid it on the altar of Santa Sophia and departed from Constantinople.

The bull of excommunication composed by Humbert shows very clearly how far the mentality of the Roman Church had changed under the influence of the reformers and how little understanding they had of the Eastern church and its customs. Humbert thought that he had discovered in the East the roots of all the great heresies and he accused them of simony while, as a matter of fact, it was only in the West that simony was rampant. He condemned their married clergy, their beards and their long hair, and he accused the Byzantines of having suppressed the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, thereby showing his ignorance of the history of the Church. The contents of the bull were found to be profoundly shocking not only by the Patriarch but also by the emperor. The tumult that ensued among the people obliged the Emperor to abandon his efforts at peacemaking and to convoke the permanent Synod. This Synod condemned the bull, a copy of it was burned in public, and the Synod excommunicated the legates whom they said had been sent by Argyrus.

Do I need to show much more? I think it’s historically safe to say that a lot of changes happened on the Western side which certainly exacerbated the already strained relationship between East and West, until relations reached a breaking point and a schism developed which never healed. Quite frankly, I take umbrage with the idea that the Orthodox Church “began” in the 11th Century, especially with so much historical evidence to the contrary. Even with the many changes which occurred in the Latin Church during the 11th century, I still would not dare to think or imply that the Roman Catholic Church started after 1054, as that is simply a misrepresentation of history and rather impolite. We can admit that we split ways without saying that one “began” after splitting from the other, regardless of which one we believe to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But something did change:

So the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] .
What is more, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
“The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” [57]
​

Also,

It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

That council, of 869-870, was rightfully abrogated by the council of 879-880 which was attended by 383 bishops (as opposed to the council of 869-870, which by comparison had a meager attendance of 102 bishops), which exonerated Photius, and which was approved of by the papal legates, the Emperor and all of the Eastern patriarchs (and rightfully should have ecumenical status).

See this post for a brief explanation of the common Roman Catholic charge that the letter of Pope John VIII to the council of 879-880 was doctored (it was edited with the consent of his legates). It is this council, not the one of 869-870, which should be rightfully regarded as ecumenical, but the Latin Church, being estranged from the eleventh century on, forgot of this council, and eventually recognized the council of 869-870 as being ecumenical, firstly because the council of 869-870 contained a useful canon against investiture which Pope Gregory VII needed, but also likely because of the persisting myths in the West about Photius as a schismatic and usurper which survive to this day (in reality, he was canonically elected, deposed unjustly, reinstated canonically and died at peace with the Church), and confusion of the two councils.

We can even see this come into play at Florence, where the Greeks upon being asked to produce the acts of the council of 869-870 answered that no such acts existed, because they had all been destroyed after the council of 879-880 condemned the council from ten years prior, but that even if they had the acts to this council, they would not regard them as being authoritative, because that council had been condemned. The Latins, surprised by this development, agreed not to count the council of 869-870 as ecumenical. Several days later, however, the Latins went back on their word, declaring that since they were not aware of the council of 879-880, it did not exist, and therefore the council of 860-870 was authoritative.

 

[LayingHands]

Unless you can prove these ‘personal verifications’, I’m afraid we won’t be paying any attention.

Not to mention that this is utterly irrelevant to the thread.

Typical…I think they are considered Buddhist Christians…certainly not irrelevant, since Buddhistism is much, much older then our Judaisim Christianity.:yup:

 

[Filii_Dei]

Typical…I think they are considered Buddhist Christians…certainly not irrelevant, since Buddhistism is much, much older then our Judaisim Christianity.:yup:

Even if such ‘Buddhist Christians’ did exist in antiquity, they cannot be considered ‘Christian’ until the time of Christ himself, so it holds that no Christian religion can be older than two millenia, and cannot be older than ‘Jewish’ Christianity. This is about the oldest Christian religion/group, not the oldest religion in the world (which is probably some shamanistic pan/polytheistic belief system even older than Buddhism and no longer exists).

 

[LayingHands]

Even if such ‘Buddhist Christians’ did exist in antiquity, they cannot be considered ‘Christian’ until the time of Christ himself, so it holds that no Christian religion can be older than two millenia, and cannot be older than ‘Jewish’ Christianity. This is about the oldest Christian religion/group, not the oldest religion in the world (which is probably some shamanistic pan/polytheistic belief system even older than Buddhism and no longer exists).

Excuse me? We are talking about a ancient written history of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His earliest adolesent/young adult ages, whom is the beginning of His preaching and teaching…Jesus Christ IS the Christian religion, and since these ancient manuscripts prove, He had Buddhist lama/monks and other Oriental Christ-ian followers during the early years of His message…of GOD’s liberation, salvation and redemption to return back to GOD, and His messages were for all humanity…and not just the higher caste classes…His Buddhist Christ-ianity religion is older…and by the way, Buddhist Christianity still exists today…and the similarities to all Christianity religions today, are quite astounding.

 

[Nine_Two]

Excuse me? We are talking about a ancient written history of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His earliest adolesent/young adult ages, whom is the beginning of His preaching and teaching…Jesus Christ IS the Christian religion, and since these ancient manuscripts prove, He had Buddhist lama/monks and other Oriental Christ-ian followers during the early years of His message…of GOD’s liberation, salvation and redemption to return back to GOD, and His messages were for all humanity…and not just the higher caste classes…His Buddhist Christ-ianity religion is older…and by the way, Buddhist Christianity still exists today…and the similarities to all Christianity religions today, are quite astounding.

So why am I to believe these “ancient written history”'s about his adolescent years over the ones that have existed in the Christian world for most of the life of the Christian faith, or over Tradition which states he spent the time in Nazareth (a claim that scripture itself makes)?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Excuse me? We are talking about a ancient written history of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His earliest adolesent/young adult ages, whom is the beginning of His preaching and teaching…Jesus Christ IS the Christian religion, and since these ancient manuscripts prove, He had Buddhist lama/monks and other Oriental Christ-ian followers during the early years of His message…of GOD’s liberation, salvation and redemption to return back to GOD, and His messages were for all humanity…and not just the higher caste classes…His Buddhist Christ-ianity religion is older…and by the way, Buddhist Christianity still exists today…and the similarities to all Christianity religions today, are quite astounding.

I have never seen one scholarly resource which documents the existence of some ancient strain of Buddhist Christianity, dating back to the time of Christ. I cannot take such claims seriously.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Excuse me? We are talking about a ancient written history of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His earliest adolesent/young adult ages, whom is the beginning of His preaching and teaching…Jesus Christ IS the Christian religion, and since these ancient manuscripts prove, He had Buddhist lama/monks and other Oriental Christ-ian followers during the early years of His message…of GOD’s liberation, salvation and redemption to return back to GOD, and His messages were for all humanity…and not just the higher caste classes…His Buddhist Christ-ianity religion is older…and by the way, Buddhist Christianity still exists today…and the similarities to all Christianity religions today, are quite astounding.

You are excused.

Again, without considering the credibility of such claims, your maths does not add up. Let us assume that Jesus Christ was born in 1 AD. From that, Christianity cannot be older than 2011 years today. Are you suggesting that these so-called ‘Buddhist Christians’ (wherever they may be) have a religion even older than 2011 years?

As for your claim that ‘Buddhist Christianity still exists today’, I’ve never once heard of such a religion anywhere, and I live in Asia. Would you care to explain?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Excuse me? We are talking about a ancient written history of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His earliest adolesent/young adult ages, whom is the beginning of His preaching and teaching…Jesus Christ IS the Christian religion, and since these ancient manuscripts prove, He had Buddhist lama/monks and other Oriental Christ-ian followers during the early years of His message…of GOD’s liberation, salvation and redemption to return back to GOD, and His messages were for all humanity…and not just the higher caste classes…His Buddhist Christ-ianity religion is older…and by the way, Buddhist Christianity still exists today…and the similarities to all Christianity religions today, are quite astounding.

http://d.static.memegenerator.net/cache/instances/250x250/13/13410/13732680.jpg

Even if any of this were true, it’s fairly obvious that, unlike Buddhists, Jesus did believe in God. Indeed, He believed very much in His own divinity - as we can see even in how He speaks, acts, and thinks in the Gospels, never mind what His Apostles and the writers of the Bible and the keepers of Sacred Tradition think of Him.

The differences between Buddhism and Christianity, from our destiny to our very existence, are great enough that while we might be able to get along, there is no way a Buddhist could be a Christian or vice-versa. We believe when we are fulfilled in God we are made completely “ourselves”. Buddhists have no concept of the “self”. It is an illusion to them. “God” is an illusion to them. :nope:

Perhaps some Buddhists liked Christ’s virtuousness. Even many atheists like this about Him. But they could never stomach His concept of “God” or “yourself” or “your neighbor” without becoming theologically “un-Buddhist” Christians.

If you mean Buddhism is a precursor to Christianity in that it was older, I agree. If you mean that some Buddhists converted in Jesus’s time, I could believe that. Many Jews and pagans did, too. But Buddhism, while virtuous in many ways, is theologically very unChristian (by which I mean, it is not like Christian theology at all).

 

[Skeptic92]

Excuse me? We are talking about a ancient written history of Our Lord Jesus Christ during His earliest adolesent/young adult ages, whom is the beginning of His preaching and teaching…Jesus Christ IS the Christian religion, and since these ancient manuscripts prove, He had Buddhist lama/monks and other Oriental Christ-ian followers during the early years of His message…of GOD’s liberation, salvation and redemption to return back to GOD, and His messages were for all humanity…and not just the higher caste classes…His Buddhist Christ-ianity religion is older…and by the way, Buddhist Christianity still exists today…and the similarities to all Christianity religions today, are quite astounding.

We’re talking about unauthenticated scrolls, that to accept the authenticity I am going to need a scholarly study into them, dating them accurately and examining the language used within them. I can’t accept there authenticity without this, as Tradition holds that Christ never left Israel.

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps what Layhands is calling “Buddhist Christianity” is Manicheanism, a syncretic religion which incorporated beliefs of both Gnostic Christianity and Buddhism. Of course it was wiped out 400 years ago. I have no doubt there is some attempt to reconstruct the religion going on, but it won’t be the original religion, being reconstructed from books and lacking the traditions they had.