Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

[YADA]

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).

I have heard and seen the term Pope applied to Patriarchs … I said that in the Catholic Church that the “Pope” is used for the successor to the Petrine Office …

What is it that you don’t understand … that Pope is an iteration of “Father”? … Italians do not refer to Benedict the XVI as Pope … but Papa

Patriarch is just an iteration of Father … Padre, Pere * Pop, Pops, Dad, Daddy, Abba … all are terms for a father or father figure … The Bishop of Rome holds the additional Office - the successor of Peter … we distinguish that role by using the rendition of Father - the Pope … that has come down to us in our Tradition … but it has its origins in Isaiah and the words of Christ and the teachings of Paul and beyond - down to us through the ages … to today …

English is really a very young language compared to others - and like all languages [except Latin and others that are seen as dead languages] - still evolving … our liturgical / religious terms change much slower … like pray … that for some Chirstians is reserved solely as a means of worship and communication reserved to God but for Catholics still means to ask, to beseech to implore and which can be addressed to God, but also to the courts [which is why legal documents are called ‘pleadings’], the Saints and the guy next door …*

 

[Cavaradossi]

So as not to offend the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch?

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is called Pope of Alexandria and All Africa, and yet his patriarchate has amicable relations with the Oriental Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and All Africa. Surely that can’t be the reason

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have heard and seen the term Pope applied to Patriarchs … I said that in the Catholic Church that the “Pope” is used for the successor to the Petrine Office …

What is it that you don’t understand … that Pope is an iteration of “Father”? … Italians do not refer to Benedict the XVI as Pope … but Papa

Patriarch is just an iteration of Father … Padre, Pere * Pop, Pops, Dad, Daddy, Abba … all are terms for a father or father figure … The Bishop of Rome holds the additional Office - the successor of Peter … we distinguish that role by using the rendition of Father - the Pope … that has come down to us in our Tradition … but it has its origins in Isaiah and the words of Christ and the teachings of Paul and beyond - down to us through the ages … to today …

English is really a very young language compared to others - and like all languages [except Latin and others that are seen as dead languages] - still evolving … our liturgical / religious terms change much slower … like pray … that for some Chirstians is reserved solely as a means of worship and communication reserved to God but for Catholics still means to ask, to beseech to implore and which can be addressed to God, but also to the courts [which is why legal documents are called ‘pleadings’], the Saints and the guy next door …*

I’m not aware of any Eastern Orthodox Patriarch who has the title “Πάπας” except for the one in Alexandria, even though it is derived from the word father. I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about here. Pope is a real title, and it began in Alexandria with Pope Heraclas, reaching Rome in the sixth century. I’m aware that Pope and Patriarch both share the same root of coming from the word for ‘father’, but Πάπας and Πατριάρχης are not equivalent. We can even see this from the Greek title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is called «Πάπας και Πατριάρχης της μεγάλης πόλεως Αλεξανδρείας, Λιβύης, Πενταπόλεως, Αιθιοπίας, πάσης γης Αιγύπτου και πάσης Αφρικής, Πατήρ Πατέρων, Ποιμήν Ποιμένων, Αρχιερεύς Αρχιερέων, τρίτος και δέκατος των Αποστόλων και Κριτής της Οικουμένης». Notice that he is called here three times some variant of father, Πάπας (pope), Πατριάρχης (patriarch), and Πατήρ Πατέρων (Father of Fathers), none of which are interchangeable titles.

By the way, the full title is rather outrageous when translated: “Pope and Patriarch of the great city of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Hierarch of Hierarchs [also translated as Prelate of Prelates, although most literally it says Archpriest of Archpriests], Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Oikoumene.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is called Pope of Alexandria and All Africa, and yet his patriarchate has amicable relations with the Oriental Orthodox Pope of Alexandria and All Africa. Surely that can’t be the reason

They are both Orthodox. It would likely be more problematic if one were Eastern Catholic and the other Orthodox.

 

[Nine_Two]

They are both Orthodox. It would likely be more problematic if one were Eastern Catholic and the other Orthodox.

They aren’t in Communion with each other, and there are a number of issues that exist between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Not as many as between Rome and either of the two Orthodox communions, but enough.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

They aren’t in Communion with each other, and there are a number of issues that exist between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. Not as many as between Rome and either of the two Orthodox communions, but enough.

Why can’t we all just get along?

 

[Nine_Two]

Why can’t we all just get along?

But that was the point wasn’t it? The two Patriarchies have amicable relations in spite of everything.

 

[Art321]

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…"

Not true!

Catholicism came into being when Christ said 'thou art Peter… while Eastern Orthodoxy came into being in 1054 AD. While Eastern Orthodoxy have valid orders and sacraments, they lack one IMPORTANT thing and that being the Bishop of Rome.

As Catholics, we believe our Church IS THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. We believe it is the original christian church and it is.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not true!

Catholicism came into being when Christ said 'thou art Peter… while Eastern Orthodoxy came into being in 1054 AD. While Eastern Orthodoxy have valid orders and sacraments, they lack one IMPORTANT thing and that being the Bishop of Rome.

As Catholics, we believe our Church IS THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. We believe it is the original christian church and it is.

Tell me, when did the Church of Constantinople (or Antioch, Alexandria or Jerusalem) leave the Church (from your perspective) in 1054 AD?

 

[Art321]

Tell me, when did the Church of Constantinople (or Antioch, Alexandria or Jerusalem) leave the Church (from your perspective) in 1054 AD?

Ok, listen. I know where you stand. You believe that the Orthodox Church is the true church and I as a fellow Chirstian respect that. But you must know where I stand.

When the Great Schism happened in 1054 AD, Constantinople and Rome each excommunicated each other. As a result this is how the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church came into being as we know them today. I’m apologize if I somehow appeared to deny this in my last post but what I was trying to say is that BEFORE the Great Schism, the Chistian Church everywhere was known as the Catholic Church. My proof for this when Saint Ignatius of Antioch used the term Catholic. I know that you don’t agree with this but this is what the Catholic Church uses this as proof to prove to others that it is the original church.

I know that we won’t be able to agree on this so let us agree to disagree. I hope you will continue to grow in faith to OUR Lord Jesus Chirst.

God bless.

 

[RyanBlack]

Not true!

Catholicism came into being when Christ said 'thou art Peter… while Eastern Orthodoxy came into being in 1054 AD. While Eastern Orthodoxy have valid orders and sacraments, they lack one IMPORTANT thing and that being the Bishop of Rome.

As Catholics, we believe our Church IS THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. We believe it is the original christian church and it is.

Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is a true Church with apostolic succession (even according to Roman Catholic teaching), it doesn’t make sense to say that came into being in AD 1054, or whichever other year some might choose to date the schism. Rather, it makes more sense, both historically and theologically, that the Roman Church and Eastern Churches that we now call the Eastern Orthodox severed communion with each other, beginning in AD 1054.

 

[Art321]

Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is a true Church with apostolic succession (even according to Roman Catholic teaching), it doesn’t make sense to say that came into being in AD 1054, or whichever other year some might choose to date the schism. Rather, it makes more sense, both historically and theologically, that the Roman Church and Eastern Churches that we now call the Eastern Orthodox severed communion with each other, beginning in AD 1054.

Please see above.

 

[RyanBlack]

Please see above.

When I started typing my post, the post I believe you are referencing had not yet appeared.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ok, listen. I know where you stand. You believe that the Orthodox Church is the true church and I as a fellow Chirstian respect that. But you must know where I stand.

When the Great Schism happened in 1054 AD, Constantinople and Rome each excommunicated each other. As a result this is how the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church came into being as we know them today. I’m apologize if I somehow appeared to deny this in my last post but what I was trying to say is that BEFORE the Great Schism, the Chistian Church everywhere was known as the Catholic Church. My proof for this when Saint Ignatius of Antioch used the term Catholic. I know that you don’t agree with this but this is what the Catholic Church uses this as proof to prove to others that it is the original church.

I know that we won’t be able to agree on this so let us agree to disagree. I hope you will continue to grow in faith to OUR Lord Jesus Chirst.

God bless.

The Orthodox do not generally deny that the undivided Church prior to the schism was known as the Catholic Church; after all, they recite the same Creed, that refers to “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.”

 

[Art321]

The Orthodox do not generally deny that the undivided Church prior to the schism was known as the Catholic Church; after all, they recite the same Creed, that refers to “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.”

True, but they deny that the Catholic Church as we know it today is the original church that was founded by Chirst. I heard that they even believe we have gone into error. So either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church is the original church because Jesus Himself said that His Church would never go into error.

 

[RyanBlack]

True, but they deny that the Catholic Church as we know it today is the original church that was founded by Chirst. I heard that they even believe we have gone into error. So either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church is the original church because Jesus Himself said that His Church would never go into error.

If Jesus ever stated that, we have no record of. Rather, we have a record of his saying that “the Gates of Hell will not prevail against” the Church, which is often interpreted as meaning a guarantee against error (an interpretation about which I am personally extremely skeptical).

Let me ask you, why do you protest that the Ortodox deny that the Catholic Church as we know it today is the original church founded by Christ, when you make the same denial about them? Furthermore, since Catholic claim that the Orthodox are in error (at a bare minimum, Catholics claim that they are in error in denying papal supremacy), why should Catholics complain that the Orthodox claim Catholics have gone into error?

Just so my biases are clear, I don’t buy into triumphalistic, supremacist claims made by the Catholic or the Orthodox (or any other group). I believe that all of the Apostolic communions (Catholic, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox) are equally the Church, and I believe that they are all responsible for the current scandalous state of schism. Of course, I understand that my position is not the prevailing view here. Clearly, from my own perspective, it makes no sense to say that the Eastern Orthodox came into existence in 1054, or the Oriental Orthodox in 451, or the Assyrian Church of the East in 431. However, I don’t think it makes sense from the perspective of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about these other communions, either, except to point to those dates as when those Churches ceased to be in communion with the Pope of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

They are both Orthodox. It would likely be more problematic if one were Eastern Catholic and the other Orthodox.

They may be closer in some ways than either is to the Papacy, but realistically that is not something either one could agree to at present. They are in different communions for a very real and serious theological reason, one is Miaphysite and the other is Diaphysite.

So these two represent two different entire communions of churches. The Coptic Catholic patriarch represents the third communion.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok, listen. I know where you stand. You believe that the Orthodox Church is the true church and I as a fellow Chirstian respect that. But you must know where I stand.

When the Great Schism happened in 1054 AD, Constantinople and Rome each excommunicated each other. As a result this is how the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church came into being as we know them today. I’m apologize if I somehow appeared to deny this in my last post but what I was trying to say is that BEFORE the Great Schism, the Chistian Church everywhere was known as the Catholic Church. My proof for this when Saint Ignatius of Antioch used the term Catholic. I know that you don’t agree with this but this is what the Catholic Church uses this as proof to prove to others that it is the original church.

I know that we won’t be able to agree on this so let us agree to disagree. I hope you will continue to grow in faith to OUR Lord Jesus Chirst.

God bless.

Well, sort of. But the excommunication written by Cardinal Humbert was against the person of Michael Cerularius, not the Church of Constantinople. Similarly, the anathema was against those legates who were behind the excommunication of Michael Cerularius, not against the Latin Church or the Pope (in fact, the Emperor and the Patriarch were so shocked by Cardinal Humbert’s behavior that they suspected he was not even sent by Pope Leo IX). Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication was also invalid, because Pope Leo IX had died around a month before he wrote it.The process of the schism is a little less clear than the year 1054 passed and then two separate communities claiming to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church appeared.

 

[Art321]

If Jesus ever stated that, we have no record of. Rather, we have a record of his saying that “the Gates of Hell will not prevail against” the Church, which is often interpreted as meaning a guarantee against error (an interpretation about which I am personally extremely skeptical).

Let me ask you, why do you protest that the Ortodox deny that the Catholic Church as we know it today is the original church founded by Christ, when you make the same denial about them? Furthermore, since Catholic claim that the Orthodox are in error (at a bare minimum, Catholics claim that they are in error in denying papal supremacy), why should Catholics complain that the Orthodox claim Catholics have gone into error?

Just so my biases are clear, I don’t buy into triumphalistic, supremacist claims made by the Catholic or the Orthodox (or any other group). I believe that all of the Apostolic communions (Catholic, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox) are equally the Church, and I believe that they are all responsible for the current scandalous state of schism. Of course, I understand that my position is not the prevailing view here. Clearly, from my own perspective, it makes no sense to say that the Eastern Orthodox came into existence in 1054, or the Oriental Orthodox in 451, or the Assyrian Church of the East in 431. However, I don’t think it makes sense from the perspective of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about these other communions, either, except to point to those dates as when those Churches ceased to be in communion with the Pope of Rome.

Just pointing out that this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Matthew 16:18-19

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Also from these, the Holy Catholic Church teaches that it will never go into error and it clearly gives St. Peter certain powers that were only for him and no one else. The Holy Pontiff in Rome is above all else and was also before the Great Schism.

Even though the Great Schism did much damage to the Chistian Church, I firmly believe that Catholic Church IS the Original Chirstian Church and the Church also advocates this as Catholic Teaching.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Just pointing out that this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Church was entrusted to all the Apostles. The Church even refers to certain saints who lived hundreds of years later (e.g. Sts. Cyril and Methodius) as “equals to the Apostles”. In so doing, the Church emphasizes that it was entrusted to the care of all the Apostles, even those saints who were equally graced in accomplishing great things in spreading the Gospel.

That said, as a fellow Catholic, I am not disputing that St. Peter was especially entrusted by Christ - this is clear. However, we do not serve the will of the Lord well when we suggest that our Orthodox brothers and sisters do not also share in the True Faith. The Catholic Church most definitely does not teach that, and steadily and faithfully continues to work toward the reunion of all the Apostolic Churches.