the first Church.

[guanophore]

I am not sure why you want to contribute to a saite like this to encourage dialog - if the beliefs of others are of no matter. Relations between churches will be better when relations between individual Catolics and individual Orthodox are better. So I do have interest in what you think - if I didn’t I would be wasting my time and money buying on-line computer time. The more we pound on this issue the more we are driving nails into coffin of church unity.

I believe that Bishop of Romes reconsideration of universal authority in relationship to Patriarch’s of other churches, his role in church councils , and such will be helpful for theologians. Also for believers to know each other and take seriously their each beliefs…

I agree with you. It is this kind of bigotry that caused the Schism in the first place!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do like Ehrman’s books…as well as Pagel, O’Grady and Mccoby. “proto-Ebionites” is as good a term as any.

Those first “followers of the Way” held onto their Jewish beliefs. In time the Gentile church under Paul took dominance especially after the fall of Jerusalem. In the second century those who claimed to be “orthodox” began to gather against those other groups of people called Christians and eventually became the dominant form of Christianity. All other groups were called “heretic”.

With the power and authority of the emperor behind them…the rest “is history”.

Gabriel of 12;
What? The Jewish members of “The Way” did not teach “circumcision” a Jewish belief; These taught baptism. These members of “The Way” attended synagogues, but were later excommunicated from them, After the destruction of the temple in 70.a.d. The liturgy of the Word before 70 a.d was celebrated first in the synagogues, then on Sunday the liturgy of the Eucharist was celebrated for those who were baptised and professed the Christian faith. There never was a Church called “orthodox” until the 11th century. What was practiced in the second century was Apostolic faith of “orthodoxy” in the Catholic Church.

Most of the heretics early on came from the Eastern Catholic Church not the Western Roman Catholic Church, the later of Whom were among the many persecuted Christians for the first 300 years, beginning with Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome for their Catholic faith.

All pagan Emperor’s sought out the Roman Pope and the Catholic Bishops to censor and or kill them. Up until 321 a.d when the persecution was lifted, later the pagan Emperor Constantine moved to the East and their ruled over the Eastern Catholic Church what you allude to as being the 'Orthodox" Church. The Pagan Emperor left Rome to the successor of Peter the Pope Bishop of Rome.

There is much historical detail to be considered here, but your comment conflicts with recorded historical fact.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I agree with you. It is this kind of bigotry that caused the Schism in the first place!

I don’t think so, were you there to know what caused it? Do you not agree the Catholic church was established by Christ? Yes or no.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am not sure why you want to contribute to a saite like this to encourage dialog - if the beliefs of others are of no matter. Relations between churches will be better when relations between individual Catolics and individual Orthodox are better. So I do have interest in what you think - if I didn’t I would be wasting my time and money buying on-line computer time. The more we pound on this issue the more we are driving nails into coffin of church unity.

I believe that Bishop of Romes reconsideration of universal authority in relationship to Patriarch’s of other churches, his role in church councils , and such will be helpful for theologians. Also for believers to know each other and take seriously their each beliefs…

i agree. sometimes i feel Catholics need to swallow their Catholic pride if we are ever to better relations between these two groups.

 

[guanophore]

What? The Jewish members of “The Way” did not teach “circumcision” a Jewish belief; These taught baptism. These members of “The Way” attended synagogues, but were later excommunicated from them, After the destruction of the temple in 70.a.d. The liturgy of the Word before 70 a.d was celebrated first in the synagogues, then on Sunday the liturgy of the Eucharist was celebrated for those who were baptised and professed the Christian faith.

What makes you think not? All of the original followers of The Way were Jewish, and therefore, had already been circumcised.

There never was a Church called “orthodox” until the 11th century. What was practiced in the second century was Apostolic faith of “orthodoxy” in the Catholic Church.

The term “orthodoxy” arose when heresies began to run rampant in the second century.

Most of the heretics early on came from the Eastern Catholic Church not the Western Roman Catholic Church,

This is just patently false! The heresies came first from Jews, then from Gnostics, Pelagians, and Arians. I think you are due for some study of some earlyheresies. Had it not been for the Eastern Churches, and Athanasius in particular, the whole Latin Rite would have fallen into ofthe Arian heresy, which had seized 80% the bishops.

lAll pagan Emperor’s sought out the Roman Pope and the Catholic Bishops to censor and or kill them. Up until 321 a.d when the persecution was lifted, later the pagan Emperor Constantine moved to the East and their ruled over the Eastern Catholic Church what you allude to as being the 'Orthodox" Church. The Pagan Emperor left Rome to the successor of Peter the Pope Bishop of Rome.

There is much historical detail to be considered here, but your comment conflicts with recorded historical fact.

As does yours!

 

[Hesychios]

It is this kind of bigotry that caused the Schism in the first place!

I don’t think so…

It is called Latin Triumphalism.

And yes, it is at the root of the Great Schism. It is the sin of Pride.

 

[jam070406]

It is called Latin Triumphalism.

And yes, it is at the root of the Great Schism. It is the sin of Pride.

This sort of attitude is sure to help heal the Great Schism.

 

[Hesychios]

This sort of attitude is sure to help heal the Great Schism.

If you won’t tell her, someone has to.

 

[jam070406]

If you won’t tell her, someone has to.

Point taken.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do like Ehrman’s books…as well as Pagel, O’Grady and Mccoby. “proto-Ebionites” is as good a term as any.

Those first “followers of the Way” held onto their Jewish beliefs. In time the Gentile church under Paul took dominance especially after the fall of Jerusalem. In the second century those who claimed to be “orthodox” began to gather against those other groups of people called Christians and eventually became the dominant form of Christianity. All other groups were called “heretic”.

With the power and authority of the emperor behind them…the rest “is history”.

I’ve been following this thread and agree with much of what you have said. I too read Ehrman and have just received his latest which I will be reviewing in a couple of weeks. You might also want to take a look at Marcus Borg and J. Dominic Crossan’s “First Paul” which came out in March. It backs up this analysis and makes a strong case that Paul actually was trying to convince what he called “God worshipers” who were Gentiles who attended synagogue and studied Torah but had not become fully into the Jewish faith. Those were his primary converts to following the “Way.” It was clear that Paul did not abandon his Jewish faith, but was still operating within the synagogue. All the early Christians who were Jewish remained in faith with Judaism, until the Jewish heirarchy finally sent them packing some years after 70CE. This in some sense helped cause the break with Judaism, since in a sense Paul was poaching adherents to Judaism as his first converts throughout the realm.

As an aside, they give perhaps the best explanation of what Paul was meaning in Romans about justification, grace and justification that I have ever read. I actually think I had reached it without knowing it, but they explain it in a way that makes perfect sense. It had to be easy to understand to the people of that time. We have spent whole libraries arguing about what he meant, and in the end, its fairly simple.

Thanks for enlightening information.

 

[Publisher]

I’ve been following this thread and agree with much of what you have said. I too read Ehrman and have just received his latest which I will be reviewing in a couple of weeks. You might also want to take a look at Marcus Borg and J. Dominic Crossan’s “First Paul” which came out in March. It backs up this analysis and makes a strong case that Paul actually was trying to convince what he called “God worshipers” who were Gentiles who attended synagogue and studied Torah but had not become fully into the Jewish faith. Those were his primary converts to following the “Way.” It was clear that Paul did not abandon his Jewish faith, but was still operating within the synagogue. All the early Christians who were Jewish remained in faith with Judaism, until the Jewish heirarchy finally sent them packing some years after 70CE. This in some sense helped cause the break with Judaism, since in a sense Paul was poaching adherents to Judaism as his first converts throughout the realm.

As an aside, they give perhaps the best explanation of what Paul was meaning in Romans about justification, grace and justification that I have ever read. I actually think I had reached it without knowing it, but they explain it in a way that makes perfect sense. It had to be easy to understand to the people of that time. We have spent whole libraries arguing about what he meant, and in the end, its fairly simple.

Thanks for enlightening information.

The struggle between Christianity and Judaism to determine which was the “authentic” remnant of Judaism is echoed in the gospels as well as Paul’s letters…the question that arose was which “version” of Judaism would survive…both did obviously as the Pharisees slavaged and developed the Rabbinc tradition after Jerusalem’s fall. And the “Gentile” version of Judaism in Christianity.

In the gospels where Jesus is reported to tell his disciple that the Jews would put them out of the synagogue is a reference back to the initial struggles after the fall of Jerusalem. The reason Christianity appealed to Gentiles is that it didn’t require circumcison…simply a ritual bath…many Gentile “God fearers” had admiration for the “One God”…it was a religion of aniquity…which was important to them which Christianity claimed for themselves through the Jewish scriptures.

I have read Borg and Crossan as well. I thouroughly enjoyed their histories.

 

[LutheranDK]

********dear non Catholics i was arguing with my friend, i believe she is an assembly of God, she told me all about the CC as she believes. after i made some points to her about her false beliefs, she came to acknowledge that the CC was the first Church.

any of you have the same belief? explain how did you come to this conclusion? that the CC was the first Church? what is the second church?

How can that question be answered when you have not told us what your friend believed about the RCC?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Really? Then how do you explain the authority given to Peter by Christ who mentions “His church”. Read:

Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Mathew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
1Corinthians 14:12
Acts 20:28, KJV

Remember the church was in existence before the bible. There is only ONE TRUE CHURCH, the Catholic church. (Why can’t others see this, for it is so clearly written in Scripture).

Right the church is the body of all believers in Jesus Christ that have been baptize,The first Church is the Cathloic Church later called the Roman Cathloic Church.
All those who are validly baptized are members of the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly. There is only one Church. Jesus did not establish “churches”. He established one Church in Matthew 16 with Peter as the first prime minister of this Church.

In each of the Covenants of God to His people there has been a Prime Minister. Jesus is the King, but a king always has his Prime Minister

In the Old Testament Moses, and his successors, were Prime Minister, the Chair of Moses (Matt 23:2). That “chair” (authority) came to an end and a new “chair” (authority) was established because a New Covenant was established.

Appointing a Prime Minister is the way God always did it since the Garden of Eden and He did it here too. This is proven in the Bible because when Jesus appointed Peter as the first Prime Minister of the New Covenant he quoted from Isaiah 22:21-23. The story in Isaiah was about the secession of office of Prime Minister. This is absolutely clear and is bold biblical proof that Peter was the first Prime Minister of the Church.

Thus, the true Church in the fullness of the faith is that group of people who are in communion with the successor of St. Peter.

Since Jesus established one Church and one Baptism, there is only one true Church in the fullness of the Faith (the Catholic Church) and one valid Baptism (with water and the Trinitarian formula). Thus, even when a person is validly baptized in a Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Baptist, and other fellowships they are Baptized into the Catholic Church even though they are not “card-carrying” members of the Catholic Church.

 

[Bill_Pick]

thks for answering. can you explain more about this group?

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy, - for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common, ’ and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves."
Saint Hilary of Poitiers… The Trinity, 7:4, 356 A.D… Jurgens 865

We must remember that the Church was here B4 the bible.

 

[rinnie]

.This is what I was taught. Guan, You know I love and respect you, but this is probally the only thing we disagree on.

But here is what I was taught. Jesus left the Church to Peter, You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. Peter was the rock and after Jesus Peter started the first Visible Church. That was the Church in Rome. It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

The reason Peter was to start the first visible Church in Rome was because at the time Rome was considered to be the center of the universe. That is why it was called the universal church. The reason it was called Roman was because Peter started it in Rome. The reason it was called universal (Catholic) was because it was in the center for all to see. And I believe the reason it is considered the first Church is because it was the first Church that all could see.

I understand that before the Church People had it in their homes, etc because of course Christians were being persecuted after the death of Jesus. But I was taught that Peter started the first VISUAL Church in Rome. That is why it is called the Mother Church today.

 

[jbelokur]

Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople but always supported the Bishop of Rome.

Actually, it was the Emperor who often was swayed by Eastern Bishops and tried to make regular their heresies. I.E. Aryanism. The west was constantly battling the east’s emperor backed bishops and their heresies.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What makes you think not? All of the original followers of The Way were Jewish, and therefore, had already been circumcised.

Gabriel of 12;

Maybe you missed the point; Publisher stated “followers of the way” held on to their Jewish belief’s" This could not be so, if they followed “The Way” which fulfilled the Jewish passover feasts “the law and the prophets”. Yes they remained Jewish, but they did not teach Jewish tradition, these followers of “The Way” preached and taught the works of Jesus crucified which fulfilled the Law of Moses.

Remember Luke was a gentile a follower of Paul who was a member of “The Way”.

guanaphore’
The term “orthodoxy” arose when heresies began to run rampant in the second century.

Gabriel of 12;

You just repeated what I stated from my commentary; “Orthodoxy” was taught to fend off heresies, there was never a labeled “Orthodox” Church as publisher stated, by the second century, it became commonly known as “Catholic” thereafter.

guanaphore;
This is just patently false! The heresies came first from Jews, then from Gnostics, Pelagians, and Arians. I think you are due for some study of some earlyheresies. Had it not been for the Eastern Churches, and Athanasius in particular, the whole Latin Rite would have fallen into ofthe Arian heresy, which had seized 80% the bishops.

Gabriel of 12;

I know of no heresies from the first century Jews who were not of “The Way” for these remained in their orthodoxy of the biblical Law of Moses and the Oral (traditional) teachings of the prophets, thus Pharisees, and Saduccees.

Arianism was one of the first major heresies to give the Catholic church a confrontation of her “Orthodoxy”. Athanasius was a student of the Bishop Alexander from Alexandria, Athanasius was the one who reacted to Arianism after it had been debunked from the council Nicea, when he was an impressive arch deacon of Alexandria. Those Bishops from both the East and West battled ultimately with these heresies and more of which you named. But this “Arian” heresie came from the East, it does not mean that many Eastern Bishops were not defending against these heresies.

While the Eastern Church were fighting there own Bishop heresies, the Western Church was not left without a fight, for the Roman Catholic Church were being sought out by the Pagan Emperors, and being made a spectacle in Pagan Rome Circus of being fed to the Lions for their Apostolic Faith of Orthodoxy, especially for the faith in the Eucharist. The Popes and the Western Bishops lived under the penalty of death, thus the Catacombs, and the Eucharist was now a term of secrecy for only the professed Catholic Christians.

On a side note, because the Eastern Church could not smolder the Arian heresy, it surfaced in the West where it was ultimately defeated. I agree with you, Athanasius was truly a Champion against the Arian hersey, which continued to surface over the next 100 years. He remained unmoved by the Arian priests and Bishops who constantly contested him. Thus we have a recorded history of these events in his life.

Historical Fact; Did you know that Athanasius was deposed by Arian priests and place an Arian Bishop in his place? Then Athanasius accompanied by 2 monks went to Rome to lay his excommunication (deposed of his Bishop See ) case before POPE JULIUS I. Pope Julius I invited the Eastern Bishops to a council in Rome who refused to come. So a Council of 50 Bishops who unaminously acquitted Athanasius of all charges against him.

It was not until the Emperor Constantius (346) under the INFLUENCE from the West and Egypt who became alarmed from the strong opposition from the West against the Arian heresy that Contantius premitted Athanasius to return to Alexandria.

After the death of Constans in 350, Arianism infected the Western Catholic Church when Constantius became Sole Emperor. Then the anti pope terminology comes into existance from this Eastern Arian heresy. I hope this helps you in understanding my statements.

Remember the Credo surfaced from the Council of Nicea because of Arian heresies, thus the Niceen Creed.

guanaphore;
As does yours!

Gabriel of 12;
I dont think we disagree of what took place in history, but may have differing opinions from different sources. I would recommend not adhering to just one “book” point of view, but collect a historical view from varying authors, which include both religious and secular. Then come away with an opinion here. I agree my history may be lacking in many areas, but from what I stated I can assure you, I can back it up with facts.

 

[guanophore]

This is what I was taught. Guan,  You know I love and respect you, but this is probally the only thing we disagree on.

Yes, I understood that this is what you were taught, and you feel obligated to cling to this, regardless of the fact that history indicates otherwise. You are right, we can agree to disaagree.

But here is what I was taught. Jesus left the Church to Peter, You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. Peter was the rock and after Jesus Peter started the first Visible Church. That was the Church in Rome. It was called the Roman Catholic Church.

For the sake of those reading this,though, I am going to point out the errors in this view.
Jesus made this statement to Peter in Palestine. The Church started in Palestine. The first line of bishops ordained by Peter was in Antioch of Syria. This part of the Catholic Church is the oldest. This church was visible, built by Christ, and was universal long before any Apostles made it to Rome.

Secondly, there was no separate Roman Rite of the Catholic Church for centuries. Peter and Paul taught and wrote in Greek as well as Aramaic, and they used non-Latin liturgies and prayers.

The reason Peter was to start the first visible Church in Rome was because at the time Rome was considered to be the center of the universe.

The Church existed in Rome before Peter got there.

That is why it was called the universal church. The reason it was called Roman was because Peter started it in Rome.

I hope that you really don’t need these fabrications in order to bolster your view of the primacy of the Roman See. It is really not necessary. T’he See of Peter has primacy, even though He did not start the Church in Rome.

The reason it was called universal (Catholic) was because it was in the center for all to see.

No, Rinnie, this is just not true. IT was called Catholic because it was the same throughout the world. On the contrary, the Christians were underground for 300 years, hiding from the Authorities, most especially in Rome. In fact, very shortly after Acts was written they got thrown out of Rome for suppossedly setting it on fire.

And I believe the reason it is considered the first Church is because it was the first Church that all could see.

Your belief is not consisent with the facts, Rinnie. If there was not a Church to see prior to Rome, how did the first council of Jerusalem happen? If there was no visible Church, how did Paul, Barnabas, and company find it in order to get the dispute settled about circumcision?

I understand that before the Church People had it in their homes, etc because of course Christians were being persecuted after the death of Jesus. But I was taught that Peter started the first VISUAL Church in Rome. That is why it is called the Mother Church today.

I am sure this is what you were taught. However, if the Church were not “visual” (whatever that means), then the disciples and Apostles would not have been able to find it, would they? And since they were able to find the Church prior to any Apostle going to Jerusalem, it existed.

How is that the disciples were first called “Christians” in Antioch, if they were “invisible”?

I am not asking you to give up the Teaching that Primacy lies in the See of Peter. But the reasons for it you were given are somewhat lacking.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, it was the Emperor who often was swayed by Eastern Bishops and tried to make regular their heresies. I.E. Aryanism. The west was constantly battling the east’s emperor backed bishops and their heresies.

Try a little reading about Athanasius and the Arian heresy.

 

[guanophore]

I know of no heresies from the first century Jews who were not of “The Way” for these remained in their orthodoxy of the biblical Law of Moses and the Oral (traditional) teachings of the prophets, thus Pharisees, and Saduccees.

Then a read of the letters of St. Paul in the NT will help. These letters (esp. Gal.) along with the narrative in Acts will make it clear that some were teaching opposite of the Apostles.

While the Eastern Church were fighting there own Bishop heresies, the Western Church was not left without a fight, for the Roman Catholic Church were being sought out by the Pagan Emperors, and being made a spectacle in Pagan Rome Circus of being fed to the Lions for their Apostolic Faith of Orthodoxy, especially for the faith in the Eucharist. The Popes and the Western Bishops lived under the penalty of death, thus the Catacombs, and the Eucharist was now a term of secrecy for only the professed Catholic Christians.

You have imagined a separation that did not exist. The Church was not divided into East and West at this time in history. She was all One.

Historical Fact; Did you know that Athanasius was deposed by Arian priests and place an Arian Bishop in his place? Then Athanasius accompanied by 2 monks went to Rome to lay his excommunication (deposed of his Bishop See ) case before POPE JULIUS I. Pope Julius I invited the Eastern Bishops to a council in Rome who refused to come. So a Council of 50 Bishops who unaminously acquitted Athanasius of all charges against him.

In between his 6 or 7 exiles for his faith!

I dont think we disagree of what took place in history, but may have differing opinions from different sources.

Well, ok. I will let it go,then.