the first Church.

[jbelokur]

Interesting I have heard the other side of the coin; Anti Catholics, or unlearned Christians try to summarize and or justify that the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination separated from the other Catholic Church’s, by listing each “Catholic Rite” as a separate denomination from the Roman Catholic church, (this is never the case, for we all partake of the same bread in the body of Jesus Christ). In attempt to shrink the whole of Catholicism to a bunch of separated denominations as compared to Protestant denominations. People are being deceived by such anti Catholic rhetoric. The challenge to this site has been addressed here, it was revealed that the author of this site was anti Catholic and his research was false and done incorrectly.

I have never heard this before. I frequently hear Protestants reinterpret the term Catholic especially in the creeds though.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Firstly, yes, I was speaking of the Vatican I & II councils.

I’ve posted this before, but I believe that it merits reposting:

"The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!"

You will see that it was not by accident that the term “Roman Catholic” is not found in the Vatican Councils documents. This is not the same as your assertion that the term pope doesn’t appear there either. Those that made certain that this term did not appear did not do so out of an ecumenical effort, but because this phrase is not used by the Church. It is however used by those who are not Catholic.

Full Article:ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

Thank you; question? Why did Pope or Papa in the Latin language did not get used in the documents? I do like the Popes signature authenticating all Catholic Bishops in unity makes for an infallibility case. I can’t blame the council that took strides to remove terminology such as Roman Catholic Church, when it was widely used by both secular, religious and anti catholic sentiments at the time? I don’t disagree with the council removing terminology what the world recognized in the Roman Catholic Church, which is my case in point of which you just confirmed both positive and negative.

I would compare this document as speaking to all Catholics of differing Valid Rites where the term “Roman Catholic Church” need not be mentioned officially, because of being a Vatican council displays authenticity from the authority of Rome. The name Roman Catholic need not be repeated for the world “Vatican” now stands in as representation of the authority of Rome in the Catholic council.

Because I agree with the councils findings and interpretations, I hold to my freedom of opinion that ecumenical thinking played a factor in terminology and definition without discounting the council. In fact at times I do not like some of the liberal ecumenical thinking that derives from these councils, which waters down the evangelical aspect of Catholicism. But that is another story.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t think anyone here is claiming that.

Originally Posted by wisdomseeker View Post
because of this term Roman Catholic, people think of the CC is just another denomination of Christianity. people believed that today. just google denominations and you see roman catholic Church being included.

google forums in the non catholic section, you will find from last year huge debate of what I disclosed here of the Roman Catholic church being a denomination.

 

[Jrush]

********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?

I do not have this belief, and I don’t understand this belief.

How can the RCC be the first church where they were split up from another church?

Here’s an abridged version of what I learned about it all from homeschooling throughout high school: in the beginning, there was one Church after Jesus went to be with his Father (God). They were persecuted but the faith spread nonetheless. Sometime around year 1000-somethin’, the Eastern parts of the church & the Western parts of Western parts of the church began having fights - some say the fights weren’t even faith-based! They were just stupid arguments, maybe even political.

So, the Great Schism happened. The Eastern Chruch became Orthodox, and the Western Church became Catholic - and both big churches are saying that they are the “one, true church”!

Whatever! It seems the one, true church split up along time ago. I’m persuaded that there will be no more one, true church or first church until Jesus comes back. :dts:

 

[rinnie]

I do not have this belief, and I don’t understand this belief.

How can the RCC be the first church where they were split up from another church?

Here’s an abridged version of what I learned about it all from homeschooling throughout high school: in the beginning, there was one Church after Jesus went to be with his Father (God). They were persecuted but the faith spread nonetheless. Sometime around year 1000-somethin’, the Eastern parts of the church & the Western parts of Western parts of the church began having fights - some say the fights weren’t even faith-based! They were just stupid arguments, maybe even political.

So, the Great Schism happened. The Eastern Chruch became Orthodox, and the Western Church became Catholic - and both big churches are saying that they are the “one, true church”!

Whatever! It seems the one, true church split up along time ago. I’m persuaded that there will be no more one, true church or first church until Jesus comes back. :dts:

Sorry the true Church is still here. It is one holy catholic and apostolic Church. If your church has all of the sacraments you are in the one True Church of Christ!

 

[Jrush]

Sorry the true Church is still here. It is one holy catholic and apostolic Church. If your church has all of the sacraments you are in the one True Church of Christ!

This doesn’t help much.

The Orthodox Church has sacraments too.

The Orthodox Church call themselves Apostolic, too.

The Orthodox Church says that they are the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, just like you do - maybe not in either mine or your exact words, but they do believe this.

So, does that make the Orthodox and the Catholics both the true Church? If so, then why aren’t both churches together in unity? Something’s wrong.

 

[rinnie]

This doesn’t help much.

The Orthodox Church has sacraments too.

The Orthodox Church call themselves Apostolic, too.

The Orthodox Church says that they are the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, just like you do - maybe not in either mine or your exact words, but they do believe this.

So, does that make the Orthodox and the Catholics both the true Church? If so, then why aren’t both churches together in unity? Something’s wrong.

Let me make this easy and clear to you. I myself have been very confused also. This is all you have to know.

ALL of the INDIVIDUAL PARTICULAR CHURCHS, eastern, or western IN COMMUNION the the APOSTOLIC SEE, ROME ARE PART OF THE CATHOLC CHURCH.

Its as simple as that. The big difference is distinctive traditions evident in the liturgy, theology and law.

The bottom line is this. When it comes to the WORD of God. We all agree. The sacraments have the same meaning, Its all the same. Its just they have different ways of expressing their faith. BUt the faith is the same.

Example today is your birthday, You have cake on your birthday. Say I don’t. ITs still my birthday. We agree that its the day we were born! We express our days different but we agree on the (name removed by moderator)ortant part. Our birthday is the day we are born. Thats how the Church’s are.

 

[Jrush]

Let me make this easy and clear to you. I myself have been very confused also. This is all you have to know.

ALL of the INDIVIDUAL PARTICULAR CHURCHS, eastern, or western IN COMMUNION the the APOSTOLIC SEE, ROME ARE PART OF THE CATHOLC CHURCH.

Its as simple as that. The big difference is distinctive traditions evident in the liturgy, theology and law.

The bottom line is this. When it comes to the WORD of God. We all agree. The sacraments have the same meaning, Its all the same. Its just they have different ways of expressing their faith. BUt the faith is the same.

Example today is your birthday, You have cake on your birthday. Say I don’t. ITs still my birthday. We agree that its the day we were born! We express our days different but we agree on the (name removed by moderator)ortant part. Our birthday is the day we are born. Thats how the Church’s are.

I may have heard of the Apostolic See once in my life! LOL

But, you’re talking about the one in Rome?

So, is there more than one See?

 

[rinnie]

I may have heard of the Apostolic See once in my life! LOL

But, you’re talking about the one in Rome?

So, is there more than one See?

I feel I answered your question correctly. Sorry I fail to see the humor in it!

 

[racing59]

I was gone racing all weekend so I’m catching up on all the posts on different threads.In reading and reflecting on the question of the first Church something hit me reading the different post.Some RC members claim to be the First and Only Church.They have also claimed when the RC leadership has done wrong their is no connection to the teachings of the RCC.for I have also seen some RC members say the Catholic Church is beyond a building and explain that if a person is ill in a building it is not the building that is ill. This got me reflecting on Scripture and history.With this being said it is logical for me in my opinion to conclude RCC was not the First Church and I’ll explain why. It stands to reason that the very First Universal(Catholic)Church for all the world, for both gentile and Jew would have been Solomon’s Temple in the Book of Kings. The Ark of the Covenant was there in the Holy of Holies. The Shekinaof the Lord was in the Holy of Holies. The Jews were to introduce God to the world.Jerusalem was the focal point of all Salvation History.The mecca center for all worship of the God of Abraham,Issac,and Jacob.Melchizedeck had come down from Salem, which later became Jerusalem. Melchizedek was not a Jew, but a Gentile, but he was still King and Priest for God. My point is this, in understanding the Old Testament, God did not take the Church from Israel and has the promise one day the Temple to be rebuilt and restored to the Glory of Solomons Temple.But like some have suggested the Church is not a building or a single person, it is the Wisdom of God. In turn I conclude the First Church belong to Israel to introduce God to the world.This would make Israel still the First Church. Peace be with you

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I was gone racing all weekend so I’m catching up on all the posts on different threads.In reading and reflecting on the question of the first Church something hit me reading the different post.Some RC members claim to be the First and Only Church.They have also claimed when the RC leadership has done wrong their is no connection to the teachings of the RCC.for I have also seen some RC members say the Catholic Church is beyond a building and explain that if a person is ill in a building it is not the building that is ill. This got me reflecting on Scripture and history.With this being said it is logical for me in my opinion to conclude RCC was not the First Church and I’ll explain why. It stands to reason that the very First Universal(Catholic)Church for all the world, for both gentile and Jew would have been Solomon’s Temple in the Book of Kings. The Ark of the Covenant was there in the Holy of Holies. The Shekinaof the Lord was in the Holy of Holies. The Jews were to introduce God to the world.Jerusalem was the focal point of all Salvation History.The mecca center for all worship of the God of Abraham,Issac,and Jacob.Melchizedeck had come down from Salem, which later became Jerusalem. Melchizedek was not a Jew, but a Gentile, but he was still King and Priest for God. My point is this, in understanding the Old Testament, God did not take the Church from Israel and has the promise one day the Temple to be rebuilt and restored to the Glory of Solomons Temple.But like some have suggested the Church is not a building or a single person, it is the Wisdom of God. In turn I conclude the First Church belong to Israel to introduce God to the world.This would make Israel still the First Church. Peace be with you

We are talking about the New Testament. The church didn’t start until 33 A.D. after Christ died. When Jesus gave authority to Peter to build His church, where he was Bishop of Rome for 25 years. the Catholic church was and always will be the FIRST church, and the only one established by Christ. The Jews had “Temples”, “Synagogues”, but not for praise and worship of Jesus Christ. Therefore the true church of Jesus is the Catholic church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I was gone racing all weekend so I’m catching up on all the posts on different threads.In reading and reflecting on the question of the first Church something hit me reading the different post.Some RC members claim to be the First and Only Church.They have also claimed when the RC leadership has done wrong their is no connection to the teachings of the RCC.for I have also seen some RC members say the Catholic Church is beyond a building and explain that if a person is ill in a building it is not the building that is ill. This got me reflecting on Scripture and history.With this being said it is logical for me in my opinion to conclude RCC was not the First Church and I’ll explain why. It stands to reason that the very First Universal(Catholic)Church for all the world, for both gentile and Jew would have been Solomon’s Temple in the Book of Kings. The Ark of the Covenant was there in the Holy of Holies. The Shekinaof the Lord was in the Holy of Holies. The Jews were to introduce God to the world.Jerusalem was the focal point of all Salvation History.The mecca center for all worship of the God of Abraham,Issac,and Jacob.Melchizedeck had come down from Salem, which later became Jerusalem. Melchizedek was not a Jew, but a Gentile, but he was still King and Priest for God. My point is this, in understanding the Old Testament, God did not take the Church from Israel and has the promise one day the Temple to be rebuilt and restored to the Glory of Solomons Temple.But like some have suggested the Church is not a building or a single person, it is the Wisdom of God. In turn I conclude the First Church belong to Israel to introduce God to the world.This would make Israel still the First Church. Peace be with you

Solomon’s Temple was of the old covenant. Christ built a Church of the new and everlasting covenant. When covenants changed, so did the Temple/Church.

Jer 31:31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

 

[racing59]

We are talking about the New Testament. The church didn’t start until 33 A.D. after Christ died. When Jesus gave authority to Peter to build His church, where he was Bishop of Rome for 25 years. the Catholic church was and always will be the FIRST church, and the only one established by Christ. The Jews had “Temples”, “Synagogues”, but not for praise and worship of Jesus Christ. Therefore the true church of Jesus is the Catholic church.

**Once again you resort to your same old defensive position when some one is trying to have an intellegent conversation.Take note how Prodigal reasponse to me, with Scripture, to back his position from the OT. You can not talk about the NT without looking into the OT the two are inter-twind, even Dr. Scott Hahn will tell you that! **

 

[racing59]

Solomon’s Temple was of the old covenant. Christ built a Church of the new and everlasting covenant. When covenants changed, so did the Temple/Church.

Jer 31:31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

I can see how you can debate the statement I made with the Scritures you have qouted.I read further though and I still have questions when I read further.
Jer.31:36 If ever the natural laws give way in spite of me,says the Lord,Then shall the race of Israel cease as a nation before me forever.
Jer 31:37 Thus says the Lord: If the heavens on high can be measured, or the foundations below the earth be sounded, then will I cast off the whole race of Israel because of all they have done, says the Lord.
I talk these verses to say that all of nature would have to cease to exsist before God would cast off Israel. Jer.31:38-40 God’s promise to rebuild Jerusalem and never again be uprooted or thrown down. This to me still suggest Jerusalem is the key to Salvation History. Jerusalem should still be the focal point for the Church God established in the OT.Remember I 'm coming from the stance as the Church not being a physical building, but a Covenant with God. Noah’s OT Covenant is still in effect Rev. 4:3 the Rainbow is still around the Throne of God reminding his Covenant promise not to flood all the earth. So we see OT Covenants have not been abolished.Also the Mosiac Law of the Ten Commandments is still in effect, the Passover Meal is still in effect, even Jesus himself followed it in the upstairs room in Jerusalem.I still conclude the first Universal Church was in Jerusalem and God has not uprooted it.Your thoughts are welcome.
Peace be with you

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can see how you can debate the statement I made with the Scritures you have qouted.I read further though and I still have questions when I read further.
Jer.31:36 If ever the natural laws give way in spite of me,says the Lord,Then shall the race of Israel cease as a nation before me forever.
Jer 31:37 Thus says the Lord: If the heavens on high can be measured, or the foundations below the earth be sounded, then will I cast off the whole race of Israel because of all they have done, says the Lord.
I talk these verses to say that all of nature would have to cease to exsist before God would cast off Israel. Jer.31:38-40 God’s promise to rebuild Jerusalem and never again be uprooted or thrown down. This to me still suggest Jerusalem is the key to Salvation History. Jerusalem should still be the focal point for the Church God established in the OT.Remember I 'm coming from the stance as the Church not being a physical building, but a Covenant with God. Noah’s OT Covenant is still in effect Rev. 4:3 the Rainbow is still around the Throne of God reminding his Covenant promise not to flood all the earth. So we see OT Covenants have not been abolished.Also the Mosiac Law of the Ten Commandments is still in effect, the Passover Meal is still in effect, even Jesus himself followed it in the upstairs room in Jerusalem.I still conclude the first Universal Church was in Jerusalem and God has not uprooted it.Your thoughts are welcome.
Peace be with you

Remember what happened in Jerusalem in 70AD? Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

We believe the new Jerusalem/Israel is the Church Christ created through the new covenant. All believers of Christ are now the chosen people.

Also, consider St. Paul’s explanation of Jeremiah 31:31.

Heb 8:6 But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament which is established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For, finding fault with them, he saith: Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind: and in their heart will I write them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them.
Heb 8:12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities: and their sins I will remember no more.
Heb 8:13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end.

 

[racing59]

Remember what happened in Jerusalem in 70AD? Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

We believe the new Jerusalem/Israel is the Church Christ created through the new covenant. All believers of Christ are now the chosen people.

Also, consider St. Paul’s explanation of Jeremiah 31:31.

Heb 8:6 But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament which is established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For, finding fault with them, he saith: Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind: and in their heart will I write them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them.
Heb 8:12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities: and their sins I will remember no more.
Heb 8:13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end.

Excellent Scriptures Prodigal. But this still leads me to more questions. I understand there is a difference between the Heavenly Church and the Church militant on earth. You could apply these Scriptures to the Church in Heaven. If it is talking about the Church on earth than one would have to conclude the Heavenly Jerusalem came down from Heaven and is here now in the Catholic Church.This would be taken a historical view of Revelation. I have been on these threads enough to know that RCC takes the historical view. This has been one of my varied problems in acceptance of RCC teachings. Josephus, and (I will have to find which one of the Early Fathers) believed that the New Jerusalem is already here. I listen to tapes by Scott Hanhn called"The End" and Scott says this very thing. Yet when I have discussed Revelation with RCC members they have been very objectionable to this thought.But then again one could make they suggestion that the Militant Church on earth is subject to decay, that it is only the Heavenly Church that is perfect and infallible. This is real confusing to me and can boggle the mind. Which is it? Is the New Jerusalem in Heaven or is she here on earth?
Peace be with you

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Excellent Scriptures Prodigal. But this still leads me to more questions. I understand there is a difference between the Heavenly Church and the Church militant on earth. You could apply these Scriptures to the Church in Heaven. If it is talking about the Church on earth than one would have to conclude the Heavenly Jerusalem came down from Heaven and is here now in the Catholic Church.This would be taken a historical view of Revelation. I have been on these threads enough to know that RCC takes the historical view. This has been one of my varied problems in acceptance of RCC teachings. Josephus, and (I will have to find which one of the Early Fathers) believed that the New Jerusalem is already here. I listen to tapes by Scott Hanhn called"The End" and Scott says this very thing. Yet when I have discussed Revelation with RCC members they have been very objectionable to this thought.But then again one could make they suggestion that the Militant Church on earth is subject to decay, that it is only the Heavenly Church that is perfect and infallible. This is real confusing to me and can boggle the mind. Which is it? Is the New Jerusalem in Heaven or is she here on earth?
Peace be with you

To the best of my understanding the Church is the New Jerusalem, being ruled by Christ in heaven. It’s one Church.

 

[racing59]

Excellent Scriptures Prodigal. But this still leads me to more questions. I understand there is a difference between the Heavenly Church and the Church militant on earth. You could apply these Scriptures to the Church in Heaven. If it is talking about the Church on earth than one would have to conclude the Heavenly Jerusalem came down from Heaven and is here now in the Catholic Church.This would be taken a historical view of Revelation. I have been on these threads enough to know that RCC dose nottakes the historical view. This has been one of my varied problems in acceptance of RCC teachings. Josephus, and (I will have to find which one of the Early Fathers) believed that the New Jerusalem is already here. I listen to tapes by Scott Hanhn called"The End" and Scott says this very thing. Yet when I have discussed Revelation with RCC members they have been very objectionable to this thought.But then again one could make they suggestion that the Militant Church on earth is subject to decay, that it is only the Heavenly Church that is perfect and infallible. This is real confusing to me and can boggle the mind. Which is it? Is the New Jerusalem in Heaven or is she here on earth?
Peace be with you

Sorry I made a mistake in saying RCC takes the historical view of Revelation, I meant the opposite.It does not condone just one view. I do not want to miss lead anyone.
Peace

 

[racing59]

To the best of my understanding the Church is the New Jerusalem, being ruled by Christ in heaven. It’s one Church.

O.K. Prodigal, so what I’m understanding here it is both? The Church in Heaven and the militant Church on earth, both being lead by Jesus Christ? Would this not then be taking the historic view of Revelation that God is presenting to the world his Bride the Church, the New Jerusalem? All is fulfilled except the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

O.K. Prodigal, so what I’m understanding here it is both? The Church in Heaven and the militant Church on earth, both being lead by Jesus Christ? Would this not then be taking the historic view of Revelation that God is presenting to the world his Bride the Church, the New Jerusalem? All is fulfilled except the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?

Blessing’s racing59; Just for clarification; The Church “Triumphant” is the one in heaven, the church militant is the same church on earth. All members of the New Jerusalem both in heaven and on earth are of the body of Jesus Christ in the “Catholic Church” where Jesus is the Head of the Catholic Church. The two are not separate from one another, thus “Communion of Saints” which is a biblical teaching and revelation.

St.Augustine is the one who coined the phrase the “New testament is hidden in the Old testament and the Old testament is revealed in the New Testament” after he received One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Oral Tradition with Sacred Scripture handed down to him after Jesus revealed “ALL” THE SCRIPTURES PERTAINING TO HIM to his apostles, not Dr. Scott Hahn.

The Catholic Church teaches that “Revelations” is past, present and future all of the above making this teaching “Eternal” present just like the Mass in its heavenly liturgical setting revealed in the book of Revelations.