The First Church

[Gianna_MarieJMJ]

Wow Prodigal…great answer!!!

As the great Protestant Convert Cardinal John Newman says…“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”.

 

[pablope]

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:

t

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

 

[pablope]

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:

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.

I strongly suggest you start your own threads about your claims against the CC. Please respect the Original poster of this thread and not to hijack it.

 

[TrueLight]

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

Thank you. It’s good to see such early writings.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

R_A;7698928]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.

**You are correct is saying that all these and others you do not mention from their inceptions from the feet of the apostles baptized them into the Catholic Church and appointed their successors in the bishops, who in turn chose qualified men to become priests and deacons to tend their flocks of Jesus Christ.

What you failed to mention is that many of these cities and Catholic church’s fell into heresy (error). The only apostolic successor who never fell into heresy is the apostolic successor to Peter in the unbroken line of apostolic succession in the Popes to today.

Here is St.Augustine, Bishop of Hippo who writes over a thousand years prior to the protestant reformation;**

“This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the True Church, the catholic Church, fighting against heresies; fight it can; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine; but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity;”
On the Creed; A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1;6

“We believe also in The Holy Church, assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics,in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself;** while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe.** Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor.”
On Faith And The Creed, Chap. 10

“One cannot have salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside of the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation.** One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing the alleluia, one can answer the Amen, one can have the Gospel, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and Preach, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic church.”**Sermon To The People Of The Church of Caesar-ea, Chap.6

“For in the Catholic Church,… not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keep me in the Church; so does her authority inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by Love, established by age.** The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present Episcopate. And so. lastly does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholic, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.”**
Against The Epistle Of Manichaeus Called Fundamental Chap. 4

Here is an Eastern Father of the Catholic Church of which you do not list;

ST.Cyril of JERUSALEM
“The Church is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, form one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, an in every kind of spiritual gifts”.
Catehesis, No. 18:23

Peace be with you

 

[R_A]

Irenaeus

I think this quote is counterproductive to you, because it shows that he viewed Peter equal to Paul.

In addition to that, it sets up at best a doctrine of first among equals (primus inter pares). It has nothing about:
-papal infallibility
-right to set other churches’ doctrine
-right to create other churches’ bishops

Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian

Doctrine of first among equals. Nothing about:
-papal infallibility
-right to set other churches’ doctrine
-right to create other churches’ bishops

Letter of Clement to James

Eusebius (III.38):

“Some have only the other day brought forward wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement’s, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients.”

Cyprian
Cyril of Jerusalem
Optatus
Ambrose of Milan
Augustine

Doctrine of first among equals. Nothing about:
-papal infallibility
-right to set other churches’ doctrine
-right to create other churches’ bishops

 

[R_A]

I strongly suggest you start your own threads about your claims against the CC. Please respect the Original poster of this thread and not to hijack it.

How have I hijacked the original thread? Should I start a new thread entitled “The First Church”?

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.

Indeed. And those authoritative men were of that particular church. They weren’t “Rome’s subjects” or bishops beholden to Rome rather than their own districts.

Each district had its own Church, in communion with Rome to be sure, just like in Anglicans there is communion with the Archbishop of Cantebury. But the bishop of Rome could never tell them a) what to believe, b) what the truth was, and c) who their bishops were going to be.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

R_A
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.

Gabriel of 12
Jesus gave Peter the keys (authority) to the kingdom of heaven on earth, to Paul he gave power and authority to “preach Christ crucified” to the Gentiles, while Peter was being persecuted by the Romans and Jews. Paul’s faith is confirmed by Peter as to his authentic conversion and Gospel to preach. Without Peter’s confirmation holding the keys of the kingdom, Paul did not have a chance to pursue his calling as an apostle to the Gentiles, while Peter was the apostles who “loosed”, opened the gates for the Gentiles from his vision from Heaven, who witnessed to both Jews and Gentiles.

Galatians 3:12
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ…
18 **Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas **and remained with him for fifteen days.

R_A
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

Gabriel of 12
In the first century Catholic “universal” church, our first pope Peter showed his infallibility always with Jesus who never leaves Peter (Chair), by walking on water.

"All the Christian community prays for Peter’s release from prison, no other apostle was given such recognition, that Heaven assists Peter out of Jail, Peter raises the dead Tabitha, Peter infallibly binds and looses Ananias and his wife to “death” when they heard Peter’s infallible words.

Peter speaks at the first Church council in Jerusalem and “All fell silent”, and instructed all Jewish/Christian leaders not force Gentiles into the Church by way of circumcission, only Baptism is required. That is what is meant by an 'Infallible" teaching from Peter’s Chair.

the “rock” of Peter was interpreted to be his faith, not his person

,

The keys were given to the Rock = Kepha = Peter, not his faith which denied Jesus 3 times. The Catholic church teaches that Jesus builds his church upon Peter the key holder from his profession of faith, to which all Christians belonging to Peter and the apostels must profess “Jesus is the messiah, the son of the living God”.

Satan not only does not need to faith, but knows that “Jesus is the messiah, the son of the living God”, but satan was not given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, only Peter =Rock.

until 700s or so
-there was no monasticism, idealizing it or even believing it, until the 500s, the beginnings of the Dark Ages

Gabriel of 12;
Monasticism is a formal discipline to live out the gospels, it has nothing to do with Church doctrines. These disciplines of prayer and fasting, taking a vow of chasitity and or poverty can change.

There is no problem, whether you chose to drive or walk to the grocery store for a drink of water. These disciplines are subject to change.

R_A

-there was reverence for celibacy until the 500s

The Latin Rite Church has never left the discipline of celibacy, just as the apostles Paul and John remained celibate as other apostles and disciples did for the kingdom of God. Where as the Eastern, and Orthodox Catholic Church’s priesthood allow their priests to be get married.

it is argued that Catholicism has quite clearly left the Early Church model, and is no longer a representative of original Christianity

.

Let’s see, Peter’s and Paul’s remains reside in Rome until the second coming

Peter’s Chair remains Rock =unchanged in the Popes today, holding the same keys Jesus gave to Peter.

The Cathollic church still practices the last supper in bread and wine, confected by the Words of Jesus himself that become his body and blood (see 1Cor. 11:21…)

The Catholic church has Apostolic successors recorded from scripture in her bishops, priests and deacons.

The Catholic Church still has 7 sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church world wide still has church councils as revealed in the new testament.

**The Catholic Church has no other founder that can lay claim to her except Jesus Christ **who built her up upon Peter and the apostles, while all other non catholics can name their founder who built their christian faith upon man and every wind of doctrine.

The list goes on…

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

.

Each district had its own Church, in communion with Rome to be sure, just like in Anglicans there is communion with the Archbishop of Cantebury. But the bishop of Rome could never tell them a) what to believe, b) what the truth was, and c) who their bishops were going to be.

Excuse me R_A you cannot compare any late Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury to the bishop of Rome. Because the authority of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is given by man, the Anglican monarchy.

The Authority (which is tested with time) that the bishop of Rome possesses in the keys of the kingdom of heaven, comes from his apostolic succession to Peter who received the keys (his authority) directly from Jesus himself.

You appear to be making a mistake here by comparing the bishop of Rome who oversees the domestic Church in Rome, and the bishop of Rome who carries with him the keys of the kingdom of heaven while sitting in the chair of Peter.

Who protects and defends the revelations of Jesus Christ over the whole flock of Jesus, which Jesus commanded him to do before Jesus resurrected, for proof, read John 21:15-17

The Pope protects, tends, feeds and teaches all of Christendom what Jesus has revealed to the apostles in every age, to all peoples and nations. World wide, while the other world wide bishops tend to their local flocks from their domestic domains given to their care.

The Pope protects the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ infallibly (without error) on faith and morals, so that all the other bishops world wide, should they come under attack by another gospel or every wind of doctrine invented by men, Jesus prayed for Peter and his successors to “bring them back after they have fallen”.

An example; The local bishop of Rome cannot tell my local bishop how to run his diocese. The Pope who carries Peter’s apostolic succession as bishop of Rome, can call my local bishop back, if? my local bishop began teaching heresy or error other than what was handed to him from Jesus and the apostles. Thus the Popes protect the flock of Jesus Christ from the wolves in every age.

You have forgotten that during the dark ages, secular powers were appointing their own bishops ( wolves in sheep clothing) to over see the flock of Jesus in their domains. They did not have cell phones back then, that sometimes when these wolves appeared in sheep’s clothing the Apostolic Catholic Faith was infected with heresy, thus begins the dark ages, reformation clarion cries and robbing of the Catholic Church flock from every wind of doctrine.

It took many years before the Popes could remove the Chair of Peter from secular powers who vied and killed to attain Peter’s chair. But the gates of hell never prevailed.

peace be with you

 

[Protestant101]

Here ya go!!!

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb2.htm

Thanks. I appreciate these kinds of resources where I can reseach this topic.

 

[pablope]

How have I hijacked the original thread? Should I start a new thread entitled “The First Church”?

e.

Yes, as your thread will take a life of its own. You could cut and paste your original post into your new thread.

 

[Nicea325]

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

WRONG!

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

WRONG!

-there was no monasticism, idealizing it or even believing it, until the 500s, the beginnings of the Dark Ages

WRONG! This is not doctrine,but a discipline.

-there was reverence for celibacy until the 500s

Celibacy is not new and read your Bible. A discipline not a doctrine…WRONG AGAIN!

-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).

What do Marian appearances have to do the Creed? The Creed is about God,not Mary-get your facts straight!

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.

What nonsense! But I can tell you what was introduced centuries later: THOUSANDS of different man-made denominations,etc,etc. I can prove it too!

BTW: The doctrine of the Trinity was made official in 325 A.D. was that invented too?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
Irenaeus

I think this quote is counterproductive to you, because it shows that he viewed Peter equal to Paul.

Equal in what aspect?

In addition to that, it sets up at best a doctrine of first among equals (primus inter pares). It has nothing about:
-papal infallibility
-right to set other churches’ doctrine
-right to create other churches’ bishops

And in that specific work of Irenaeus was the issue about papal infallibility? Stop adding to the text or taking it out-of-context.

 

[JustaServant]

I try Thanks for having me.

NCR has a pretty tough forum moderator now
I would suggest you not walk around like a drunk gunfighter calling Marshal Dillon out of the Long Branch for a showdown.

 

[JustaServant]

The 700s or so?

Irenaeus

Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

Letter of Clement to James

**
Cyprian**

**
Cyril of Jerusalem**

Optatus

Ambrose of Milan

Augustine

Love these quotes. Slam dunk!

 

[R_A]

NCR has a pretty tough forum moderator now
I would suggest you not walk around like a drunk gunfighter calling Marshal Dillon out of the Long Branch for a showdown.

Can you give me a good reason why I should give your threats a second thought?

The starter of this thread befriended me as soon as I posted my post supposedly “derailing” his thread. It is people like you who need to be put on a moderating short notice for issuing thinly veiled threats.

 

[Gianna_MarieJMJ]

Thanks. I appreciate these kinds of resources where I can reseach this topic.​

Glad to have helped

 

[Protestant101]

Can you give me a good reason why I should give your threats a second thought?

The starter of this thread befriended me as soon as I posted my post supposedly “derailing” his thread. It is people like you who need to be put on a moderating short notice for issuing thinly veiled threats.

Hello my friend. Just relax. These people on the forum really are not all that bad - atleast no worse than you or I. I have been here for years now and I think it’s because I have learned that I can learn more and accomplish more by being patient with them. LOL, I know they have certainly been patient with me.

I would like to explore some more of your thoughts on the first church question. Your first post above I found very interesting. Maybe you can expand a little and dig up a reference or two? I would enjoy discussing online with you!

 

[AndrewJMason]

I am too lazy to read through all these so here’s how I see it.
Matthew 16:15-20. That explains it all.
Peter was the rock, and given the keys to heaven.
Peter being the first pope, established the Roman Catholic Church. (Catholic church, but because of it’s location it adapted the Roman name). The church of Christ is said to stand to the end of time. The church has stood since Christ established it on Earth and it won’t be going down anytime soon. Sure we have our faults, but so do protestants.

 

[Protestant101]

Love these quotes. Slam dunk!

I am not so sure that these quotes actually PROVE anything definitive about what or who comprised of 'the first Church; but they do establish the nature of Roman Catholic claims thereof. Claims, to me, are different than evidence.