The First Church

[Protestant101]

I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!

 

[elvisman]

I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!

**Studying the writings of the Early Church Fathers is always a good place to start. After reading just exactly what the Church was in the early centuries, how they practiced their faith and the beliefs handed down, I believe you will find that it is inescapably Catholic. **

Here is a link to some of their writings:
newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[Third_Day]

I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!

The Catechism would be good to learn Catholic teachings. I would recommend reading *The Four Witnesses *by Rod Bennett. This is a book on four Church Fathers. Then I would read *The Faith of Our Fathers *by James Cardinal Gibbons. *Crossing the Tiber * and *Upon This Rock *by Steve Ray would also be great resources.

 

[pablope]

I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!

First thing one should ask is who is the founder of your denomination? Where do you trace your roots? Can these be traced all the way to the Apostles? and eventually, to Jesus?

As others have suggested, start with the Early Church Fathers. A good source is the one on the top of this forum page…www.thefathersknowbest.com.

What did the early Christiand practice and believe?

For startes, here is a link to the Didache…the earliest know form of instruction from the Apostles…

earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

 

[Barbkw]

Start first with Sacred Scripture:

bible.cc/acts/2-42.htm

Luke 24:30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them.​

Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.​

Acts 2:46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,​

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.​

Acts 20:11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left.​

1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

 

[piejesu]

Below is a link to many of the extant writings of the Early Church Fathers and later…all free.

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[Barbkw]

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/532/Sunday_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church_St._Justin_Martyr.html

150 A.D. St. Justin Martyr’s Apology to “the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Cæsar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.”

This famous passage from the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr (Cap. 66-67: PG 6, 427-431) is used in the Roman Catholic Office of Readings for the third Sunday of Easter with the accompanying biblical reading of Revelation 6:1-17).

Reflecting the way the Eucharist was celebrated in Rome about 150 AD, only about 55 years after the last New Testament books, it makes clear several important things:

1. the Eucharist was interpreted in a very realistic way in the early church

1. it was the principal, weekly worship celebration of the Christian Church

1. it took place on Sunday, not on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath

1. the meaning of the Eucharist and manner of its celebration was handed down by the apostles

St. Justin Martyr wrote:

No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

Be sure to check out these other wonderful readings about the Eucharist in the Early Church:

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Early Church–St. Cyril of Jerusalem
and
This is My Body – St. Ambrose on Eucharistic Consecration

 

[R_A]

The problem with the “First Church” claim is that there are many denominations which claim that they are the only one and true “first” church:

the Orthodox,
the Ethiopians,
the Miaphysites,
the Chalcedonians,
the Catholics,
etc.

Secondly, it is acknowledged that Rome had a seat of pre-eminence amongst the Early Church just in the sense of first among equals. Akin to how the Archbishop of Canterbury has primacy among Anglicans. It never had the power to make doctrine, or to tell other Churches what to believe, and Paul even proves in the Epistles how he is equal to Peter in all things. If we take Scripture seriously, Paul is equal to Peter among the Apostles, and there is no supremacy of Peter over Paul.

Here then is the problem with the claims of Catholics – the granting of the “first among equals” alone. In addition to this there are many doctrines they’ve introduced later which go contrary to the doctrines that the Early Church had stood for:

-there was no papal infallibility, even among Catholics, until 800s or so
-the “rock” of Peter was interpreted to be his faith, not his person, until 700s or so
-there was no monasticism, idealizing it or even believing it, until the 500s, the beginnings of the Dark Ages
-there was reverence for celibacy until the 500s
-there was no Mariology, with the first unofficial reference to her appearing in the 300s or so (and being absent from the Nicene Creed altogether, as irrelevant).

These were all the things that were introduced by the Catholic Church over time, especially papal supremacy introduced during the Dark Ages over an ignorant Europe, to extend the Pope’s power. For these reasons, it is argued that Catholicism has quite clearly left the Early Church model, and is no longer a representative of original Christianity.

 

[Deconi]

I would be interested to read any Catholic literature such as the Catechism or other official publications which explain why Roman Catholics see themselves as the first Church. I am not sure exactly where to look so I thought I would try posting this subject to investigate. Thanks to all who participate!

That you’ve been here long enough and to amass over 2000 posts, but now ask for verification of the The CC lineage and pedigree suggests you’re baiting or looking for an argument!

Surely, during your intercourse here thus far the question has not only been answered but you would have discovered by now WHERE to look!

Just sayin’…

 

[Protestant101]

That you’ve been here long enough and to amass over 2000 posts, but now ask for verification of the The CC lineage and pedigree suggests you’re baiting or looking for an argument!

Surely, during your intercourse here thus far the question has not only been answered but you would have discovered by now WHERE to look!

Just sayin’…

Of course; as you wish.

 

[Protestant101]

The problem with the “First Church” claim is that there are many denominations which claim that they are the only one and true “first” church:

There are different views about “church” to be sure. “First church,” True church," "Remnant church, etc It is interesting to look into

 

[Deconi]

The problem with the “First Church” claim is that there are many denominations which claim that they are the only one and true “first” church:

the Orthodox,
the Ethiopians,
the Miaphysites,
the Chalcedonians,
the Catholics,
etc.

Secondly, it is acknowledged that Rome had a seat of pre-eminence amongst the Early Church just in the sense of first among equals. Akin to how the Archbishop of Canterbury has primacy among Anglicans. It never had the power to make doctrine, or to tell other Churches what to believe, and Paul even proves in the Epistles how he is equal to Peter in all things. If we take Scripture seriously, Paul is equal to Peter among the Apostles, and there is no supremacy of Peter over Paul.

Here then is the problem with the claims of Catholics – the granting of the “first among equals” alone. In addition to this there are many doctrines they’ve introduced later which go contrary to the doctrines that the Early Church had stood for:

-there was no papal infallibility, even among Catholics, until 800s or so
-the “rock” of Peter was interpreted to be his faith, not his person, until 700s or so
-there was no monasticism until the 500s
-there was reverence for celibacy until the 500s
-there was no Mariology, with the first unofficial reference to her appearing in the 300s or so (and being absent from the Nicene Creed altogether, as irrelevant).

These were all the things that were introduced by the Catholic Church over time, especially papal supremacy introduced during the Dark Ages over an ignorant Europe, to extend the Pope’s power. For these reasons, it is argued that Catholicism has quite clearly left the Early Church model, and is no longer a representative of original Christianity.

That is quite a mouthful for a first post.

I would suggest you look around the forum for each particular ‘issue’ you imagine as being ‘correct’ before you espouse ‘fightin’ words…unless, of course, you feel you’re ready to back up what you say?..

…in the spirit of charity, of course.

 

[Deconi]

My manners!!

WELCOME to CAF R_A. Glad to ‘see’ you.

Have at it.

 

[R_A]

That is quite a mouthful for a first post.

I try I do believe these are actual problems. Did you know that the original bishops were elected by the clergy and their parisioners, not appointed by the Pope? The very idea in the Early Church that the bishop of Rome would think of himself so much as to invade the dioceses of other Churches and appoint their bishops would have been found quite laughable.

My manners!!

WELCOME to CAF R_A. Glad to ‘see’ you.

Thanks for having me.

 

[Deconi]

I try I do believe these are actual problems. Did you know that the original bishops were elected by the clergy and their parisioners, not appointed by the Pope? The very idea in the Early Church that the bishop of Rome would think of himself so much as to invade the dioceses of other Churches and appoint their bishops would have been found quite laughable.

Do you know that those ‘positions’ you hold as being accurate are laughable now, too?

Thanks for having me.

You are most welcome.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

-the “rock” of Peter was interpreted to be his faith, not his person, until 700s or so

The 700s or so?

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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 which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

**
Cyprian**

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
**
Cyril of Jerusalem**

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

 

[Gianna_MarieJMJ]

Here ya go!!!

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb2.htm

 

[Deconi]

The 700s or so?

Irenaeus

Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

Letter of Clement to James

**
Cyprian**

**
Cyril of Jerusalem**

Optatus

Ambrose of Milan

Augustine

Aww shucks, Prodigal! Education is a curious thing. As Paul said, milk for the ‘young’ as they may not be yet ready for ‘solid food’! (paraphrasing of course)

 

[Gianna_MarieJMJ]

Sorry I forgot one more thing…

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

God Bless and let me know what you think =))

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I try I do believe these are actual problems. Did you know that the original bishops were elected by the clergy and their parisioners, not appointed by the Pope? The very idea in the Early Church that the bishop of Rome would think of himself so much as to invade the dioceses of other Churches and appoint their bishops would have been found quite laughable.

Thanks for having me.

The ‘original’ bishops were chosen and appointed by Christ. Where congregations put forth candidates, those candidates were affirmed by the authoritative men of the Church.