Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

[John_of_Patmos]

I mean, Nestroians did get to China, BUT is cerntainly NOT Buddhist in any way. Christians cannot accept Buddhist Philosophy: Check out the 1st Commandment.

“Originally Posted by LayingHands
And unless you can dispute these personal verifications…do not pass a blind sentence of heresy”

And yes, it is heresy.

 

[twf]

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”.

Actually, the Roman Church is the diocese of Rome - not the universal Church. Why do you think the late Holy Father refers to the Roman Church as the “mother and mistress” of all the churches (note the plural)? The Diocese of Rome, or the Roman Church, by virtue of the merits of Sts. Peter and Paul, holds primacy among the churches of God - she is the guardian of unity and orthodoxy - and all other local churches are to turn to her for guidance. Really the Holy Father is echoing St. Iraneaeus who, writing in the late second century, said:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 successions 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 with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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” (Against Heresies., 3:3:2).

Our Eastern brothers and sisters often refer to the the Western Church sui iuris as the Roman Church - someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the Roman Church has almost always referred to the Diocese of Rome…while those dioceses of the West that, together with the Roman Church, worship according to the Roman Rite and its variants, are in fact the Latin Church. The Latin Church, the Eastern Churches, and the Oriental Churches collectively form the Catholic Church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In actual fact, the Eastern Orthodox refer to Western Catholics as “Latin Catholics” and not “Roman Catholics” and there is a reason for this.

To be a “Roman” meant a certain identity and belongingness to the once undivided Catholic Church that professed the Orthodox Faith.

The term in Greek is “Romaios” and the national languages of the Romans was both Greek and Latin and they were also both culturally. The term “Byzantine” was a form of “Roman” or “New Roman” as well.

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the Patriarch of “New Rome” and the Turks always referred to him as the “patriarch of the Romans.”

Having said that, upon the split between East and West (that certainly wasn’t formally solidified until after 1204), both sides saw in each other only a “part” of the fullness that was the “Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ,” that fullness having been ruptured. The West, from then on, referred to the East as the “Greeks” while the East referred to the West as the “Latins.” That New Rome could take over from Old Rome was certainly not something new in the East - Rome as the Petrine seat had always included the pentarchy for the East.

The Orthodox Church worked in an opposite way than the Western Church on the score of the Petrine Minister. The Roman Pope was such only on condition of his being able to confess the ancient Faith of Peter (in this case, the original Creed without the addition which absolutely affirmed, to the East, that there were two Sources for the Holy Spirit within the Trinity - something the West likewise denied as heretical).

As one Orthodox writer once said, “Do not argue with the Latins about Peter’s Primacy - it is good for the Church. Only ask if the pope confesses the faith of Peter - and, if so, then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter.” (This was quoted in a work by Fr John Meyendorff).

Alex

 

[LayingHands]

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)?

I think you need to take to heart, first, that Our Lord Jesus says to “Prove all things”, to yourself.

At the same time, open your mind to the latest ancient written history such as the Lost Gospels, of Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene, even Peter!..the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammandi, and other ancient religious texts, which have in our recent history, been “found” and brought to humanity’s base of known and practicing, religious ancient history manuscripts.

Try to have some faith, that all world religions are based on the Wise Religion, which is the Science of GOD, the belief in the Creator (history, through THOUSANDS of years, within the disciplic succesion of Brahmanism).

In this same way, you can dig further back into your open mind, and discover where the GOD/Wise Religion began?..the base foundation of all Christianity, Judaism, and Brahmanism’s offshoot, Buddhism, are based religions, with belief in the Creed (Correct Belief), as reality, of One Almighty GOD.

The Wise Religion as Catholism and Christianity, are foundation based in Brahmanism (simply, without the perversions or changes, to class/rites/schisms), and Buddhism is an offshoot of Brahmanism too…

There are 3 types of Buddhism and the Buddhism you are aware of is Mayavada (illusion) and this Buddha, broke away from the Brahmanism sects, because of what he considered were perversions of the original brahman…the disciplic succession scriptures, of GOD’s/Wise Religion, 2600 yrs. ago.

Buddhism (as one offshoot to Brahmanism) Lama monks and lay monk historians do not lie…(really, they follow GOD’s law, of not bearing false witness to anyone=Brahmanism) and their historical events were passed from oral tradition to written manuscripts, in order to preserve the history of the times…no more nor any less.

 

[LayingHands]

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.

Actually, they were Christian Buddhists…and all I said was that the Buddhist Lama Lay Monks, not only kept a written ancient history, but Jesus had followers whom, first of all saved Him from the death threats of the Jainism sect of Brahmanism…but, they also kept records of His life and teachings among their Buddhist sect, which had broken away from what they considered was a perversion or changed, theology of Brahmanism = Wise Religion of the Science of GOD.

Let’s say for arguments sake, that Jesus did not agree with the Jainism sect of Brahmanism, because He wanted all humanity to have the right to listen and believe in GOD’s promises…to include the lower classes, including slaves…this angered them with a death sentence.

And as he crossed the Himalayas, back to Israel, he spent another 6 yrs. among a Brahman Buddhist sect, another offshoot of Buddhism, learning that they kept the disciplic succession of the Science of GOD…simply…without any perversion or change among it’s original written ancient history, philosophy, theology…the pure, Science of GOD…and this Brahman Buddhist sect believed all humanity had a birthright by GOD to pursue His liberation, salvation and redemption, back to Him…isn’t this the message Jesus brought back?

 

[LayingHands]

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?

Where have you been? Christianity is base rooted to Brahmanism and Buddhism…so is Judaism, the Romans, the Egyptians…Jesus was born approx. 5 to 6 AD and was physically here on earth until 33AD to 36 AD…

The Wise Religion of India (Brahmanism = the Science of GOD) is thousands of years older than Christiany. Even the Bhagavad-Gita is 5,000 years old…Buddhism is 2,600 yeras old…and per the history of the written Bhahavad-gita, GOD says he is re-introducing His Religion, because it had been broken, of it’s disciplic succession…

Which was many thousands of years before this 5,000 yrs.re-introduction…GOD having begun the first disciplic succession of His Science (of GOD), to the Sun-God…at the beginning of Creation.

 

[LayingHands]

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.

It’s ok, I cannot prove them to you and as Jesus said YOU must “Prove all things”. You may also disbelieve the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Lost Gospels of Peter, Mary Magdalene, Judas, Phillip and Thomas…along with the Nag Hammandi…it is much easier to believe tradition, without question or proof…

 

[LayingHands]

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.

I think like any religion found on the original Brahmanism of The Science of GOD, as One Almighty GOD, Creator…His promises/messages for all Humanity, of His liberation of karma and sins, His Salvation and His laws of Redemption, to return back to Him…

These Buddhist Christians, have all the ingredients, just about right…and they too will find their way…(Christian Buddhists).

 

[LayingHands]

I mean, Nestroians did get to China, BUT is cerntainly NOT Buddhist in any way. Christians cannot accept Buddhist Philosophy: Check out the 1st Commandment.

“Originally Posted by LayingHands
And unless you can dispute these personal verifications…do not pass a blind sentence of heresy”

And yes, it is heresy.

There is more than ONE Buddhist sect…only Mayavada is based on the “Illusion” of GOD with imaginary right, to apply the maya (illusion) terms to all their Buddha’s beliefs.

Could we align it similar to Christianity and Catholism, Lutherism? Protestants? Evangelists? All believing in One Almighty GOD, however, different in their dogmas, rites, doctrines, history and beliefs (creeds as correct belief)…while maintaining a pretty similar base root foundation?

Not all Buddhists are athiests…some Buddhists sects believe in the original Brahmanism = the Science of GOD and GOD’s Laws for the return of Humanity, to Him…

Remember, Buddhas are “enlightened ones”, teachers and gurus…and there were at least 100 other Buddhas, before the belief of the Mayavada Buddhist sect.

 

[LayingHands]

I mean, Nestroians did get to China, BUT is cerntainly NOT Buddhist in any way. Christians cannot accept Buddhist Philosophy: Check out the 1st Commandment.

“Originally Posted by LayingHands
And unless you can dispute these personal verifications…do not pass a blind sentence of heresy”

And yes, it is heresy.

P.s…good thing I don’t believe in heresy, then, huh? Even I can change… though, how would that be perverted, since I am taking ancient GOD religion as its base foundation, without man’s added dogmas, rites, doctrines, etc.

I believe in the Science of GOD, in HIS disciplic succession of Laws, and the New Testament, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, without man’s added changes.

 

[parable1]

correct me if I am wrong wasnt the earliest group of christians talked about was called The Way?

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

correct me if I am wrong wasnt the earliest group of christians talked about was called The Way?

I suppose, technically, yes. That is what they referred to themselves as; or, rather, what they referred to their religion as. It was in Antioch that they were first Christians. Likely this was a slur aimed at them, but we took it proudly as our own

 

[pismopal]

Considering that the title “pope” comes from Alexandria from around the third century, I don’t think that it’s very historically accurate to say that St. Peter was the first pope.

The term and indeed the concept of “Gravity” was brought to us by Isaac Newton. Newton did not invent gravity…it always existed…he just gave it a name and defined it. Our leaders were always there…we just later began to call them “Pope” and we still do and since we have given them that name…this is what we call ALL of them. Now that was easy…wasn’t it?

 

[Cavaradossi]

The term and indeed the concept of “Gravity” was brought to us by Isaac Newton. Newton did not invent gravity…it always existed…he just gave it a name and defined it. Our leaders were always there…we just later began to call them “Pope” and we still do and since we have given them that name…this is what we call ALL of them. Now that was easy…wasn’t it?

And where in the Sacred Scriptures or the canons of the first millennium may I read about the “Pope of Rome” (also known as the archbishop of Rome or simply bishop of Rome to the Ancient Church before he took the honorific title of pope for himself, which by the way, your Church does not even allow its own Coptic patriarch of Alexandria to use, even though it should be his title too) and how he is Peter’s successor? Easy indeed.

By the way, I don’t mind that belief in the pope is an article of faith for Catholics, even though the office is an historical development. What I do mind is your church telling the rest of apostolic Christianity that the papacy comes straight from St. Peter and Jesus Christ, when that is never how we understood it. Even some Catholic historians have conceded that point.

 

[Art321]

And where in the Sacred Scriptures or the canons of the first millennium may I read about the “Pope of Rome” (also known as the archbishop of Rome or simply bishop of Rome to the Ancient Church before he took the honorific title of pope for himself, which by the way, your Church does not even allow its own Coptic patriarch of Alexandria to use, even though it should be his title too) and how he is Peter’s successor? Easy indeed.

By the way, I don’t mind that belief in the pope is an article of faith for Catholics, even though the office is an historical development. What I do mind is your church telling the rest of apostolic Christianity that the papacy comes straight from St. Peter and Jesus Christ, when that is never how we understood it. Even some Catholic historians have conceded that point.

The Papacy does come straight from St. Peter according the Catholic Church. This is what we believe. I really don’t seem why you are offended by that when even I am not offended by the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the true church that was founded by Chirst Himself.

 

[pismopal]

And where in the Sacred Scriptures or the canons of the first millennium may I read about the “Pope of Rome” (also known as the archbishop of Rome or simply bishop of Rome to the Ancient Church before he took the honorific title of pope for himself, which by the way, your Church does not even allow its own Coptic patriarch of Alexandria to use, even though it should be his title too) and how he is Peter’s successor? Easy indeed.

By the way, I don’t mind that belief in the pope is an article of faith for Catholics, even though the office is an historical development. What I do mind is your church telling the rest of apostolic Christianity that the papacy comes straight from St. Peter and Jesus Christ, when that is never how we understood it. Even some Catholic historians have conceded that point.

Your question was asked and answered. The answer may just be too simple for you. Of all the silly objections to the Church that I have heard…yours takes the cake. The rest of your post is just another argument about Church authority which has been answered very many times and by very many people here and elsewhere. Actually…what you mind or don’t mind about the Church is mildly interesting.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your question was asked and answered. The answer may just be too simple for you. Of all the silly objections to the Church that I have heard…yours takes the cake. The rest of your post is just another argument about Church authority which has been answered very many times and by very many people here and elsewhere. Actually…what you mind or don’t mind about the Church is mildly interesting.

You do not know me. You also did not answer my “question.” In fact, the post in which you first quoted me didn’t even have a question in the quote.

 

[YADA]

Considering that the title “pope” comes from Alexandria from around the third century, I don’t think that it’s very historically accurate to say that St. Peter was the first pope.

the word “Pope” is just an iteration of the word for Father … Abba, Daddy, Papa, Pope …

In the Orthodox there are bishops referred to as Popes … Bishops could be referred to as Popes - they are not referred to in this way in the Latin Rite tradition but perhaps are in some Eastern Rites … For those Catholic Rites in communion with Rome as it is said - The term Pope [English - Papa in Italian] is reserved in its use for the successor of Peter … but it simply means Father

You may feel like the term become the common term only at Alexandria … but the Prime Minister as noted in Isaiah is referred to as being a father figure to the people - so much so that they called him Abba - Father … this is the same passage that Jesus quotes when He declares that His Church will be built upon Simon - renamed Rock - Peter …

Paul writes that his is a Father to the people …

It is clear that the term Father is relation to the leaders of the Church from its earliest times to the present includes this reference … and that there exist a slight variation that us reserved for the ‘father’ that sits in the Chair of Peter is quiet natural …

That said … both the Orthodox and Catholics have a common beginning - with a sad division a milinia later … both have valid succession and sacraments …

THUS IMHO -

When I looked at the history of Christianity, the teachings of the early Church Fathers, the councils - the totality of the historical record … aligning myself with the successor to the Chair of Peter fulfilled what the scriptures recorded our Lord intended when He prayed … “that they be One, Father, as You and I are One” and when He said …“though art Rock and on this Rock I will build My Church … and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” Pax Christi

 

[Cavaradossi]

the word “Pope” is just an iteration of the word for Father … Abba, Daddy, Papa, Pope …

In the Orthodox there are bishops referred to as Popes … Bishops could be referred to as Popes - they are not referred to in this way in the Latin Rite tradition but perhaps are in some Eastern Rites … For those Catholic Rites in communion with Rome as it is said - The term Pope [English - Papa in Italian] is reserved in its use for the successor of Peter … but it simply means Father

You may feel like the term become the common term only at Alexandria … but the Prime Minister as noted in Isaiah is referred to as being a father figure to the people - so much so that they called him Abba - Father … this is the same passage that Jesus quotes when He declares that His Church will be built upon Simon - renamed Rock - Peter …

Paul writes that his is a Father to the people …

It is clear that the term Father is relation to the leaders of the Church from its earliest times to the present includes this reference … and that there exist a slight variation that us reserved for the ‘father’ that sits in the Chair of Peter is quiet natural …

That said … both the Orthodox and Catholics have a common beginning - with a sad division a milinia later … both have valid succession and sacraments …

THUS IMHO -

When I looked at the history of Christianity, the teachings of the early Church Fathers, the councils - the totality of the historical record … aligning myself with the successor to the Chair of Peter fulfilled what the scriptures recorded our Lord intended when He prayed … “that they be One, Father, as You and I are One” and when He said …“though art Rock and on this Rock I will build My Church … and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” Pax Christi

If that is true, then why does your Church keep the title of Pope only for the bishop of Rome, and not give it to its Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, as it is a proper title for the bishop of Alexandria (along with thirteenth apostle, ecumenical judge and a few others).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If that is true, then why does your Church keep the title of Pope only for the bishop of Rome, and not give it to its Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, as it is a proper title for the bishop of Alexandria (along with thirteenth apostle, ecumenical judge and a few others).

So as not to offend the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch?