The First Church

[ClamDigger]

Moving on, questions I have been pondering on: If the Lutheran religion was a “splinter” from Catholicism, why should they not also feel they go all the way back to Christ? What about Orthodox? Are all “first” Churches?

Lutherans completely reject what they “splintered” from. That means they reject the Church that Christ and his apostles founded. Therefore, they cannot trace themselves all the way back to Christ because they completely reject all that came before them.
Orthodox do have Apostolic Succession, so I will not go into that here, as they are members of the One Church, just divided from us due to a schism. They do not, however, completely reject our deposit of faith and tradition as Lutherans and other Protestants do.

 

[ClamDigger]

I know. That is why I clarified my answer in regards to the Eastern Churches.

 

[JustaServant]

What I am saying is that the Church (collectively all denominations) has existed in one form or another since well before the first century.

Still waiting for your documentation…

 

[elvisman]

There are quite a few responses since my last post here; so I will have to just choose one, maybe two of them to answer…time is limited and I cannot answer to all. LOL, now what do I do? (I’ll be back )

Answer them.

Some of the responses (like mine) were answers to questions raised by YOU - and now you’re telling us that you won’t respond to them because of time constraints?
**Ummm - I think it’s because you don’t have a smug comeback for each of these valid points . . .

If you’re going to peddle anti-Catholicism - on a Catholic discussion board - be prepared to address the responses to your ridiculous charges.

 

[Deconi]

Sounds like you are rather familiar with the response to which your second sentence alludes, so no need to repeat it. The fact is, you don’t KNOW, and you can’t PROVE. Want to see my “list” proving I am descended from Noah?

The fact is the CC does know and have proven Her lineage!

For instance, if you have a problem with someone on that list, point it out and let us see your case against him. The list is not created in some Catholic’s mind. It is simply a record of history as it progresses.

You seem to be suffering the delusions of the ‘opinions’ that you’ve learned and thus far shaped your views.

On Noahadic lineage, interestingly, I attended a conference some time ago on the subject of the Pacific peoples descending from Ham!..son of Noah. He is said to ‘begat’ the Pacific. There actually are scientists and theologians working on the ‘theory’ here in trying to find the links etc.

Please understand I have no problem with belief, and I respect your beliefs. Just don’t turn them into facts when they are not.

Aww, but James, a fact remains a fact whether we believe or not. Manipulation comes when disputation is futile. Since I haven’t seen any attempt at disputing that list other than just saying it ain’t so, I won’t cast ‘manipulation’ toward you.

Moving on, questions I have been pondering on: If the Lutheran religion was a “splinter” from Catholicism, why should they not also feel they go all the way back to Christ? What about Orthodox? Are all “first” Churches?
james

Others have pointed out the difference between departing from a source and CONTRADICTING that source! Schism and abandon are two very different things.

Thanks for the O.K. Jharek. Much obliged.

 

[elvisman]

Moving on, questions I have been pondering on: If the Lutheran religion was a “splinter” from Catholicism, why should they not also feel they go all the way back to Christ? What about Orthodox? Are all “first” Churches?

james

Because Christ only established ONE Church. ALL Protestant denominations were extablished by mere MEN - every single ONE of them.

They can only go back 500 years or so to when they established their own set of beliefs - apart from the historic Christian faith of the Apostles.

This doesn’t take them back to the time of Christ.**

 

[MBS1]

Um. Per a comment that Acts 9:31 contains the phrase “**“Ekklesia kath olos” **(post #68) – which means the “Catholic Church”, I have not been able to find that. I have looked at three Greek/English Bible lexicons (two on-line and one I own) – and the phrase in all three simply reads “ oun Ekklesia kata” (“so the church throughout”) or a variant of that. The word “kata” here defined as “throughout” is said to mean “down from and according to”. I am Catholic, and I have seen taught here and in multiple sources that the first recorded use of the term “Catholic” was by Ignatius of Antioch in or around 110 A.D in one of his letters. Most of the scholars that I read would agree the word “Catholic” is not in scripture, but it doesn’t have to be (neither is Trinity, Bible, etc. - you know the argument). There was only one church started by Jesus in the 30’s, which passed on and taught what He taught. The same church existed in the 60’s, 90’s, 100’s etc. and up to now. Ignatius uses the term in 110 AD as if it were a well known term – but from when, nobody knows. Just wondered what lexicon defines “kath” or “kata” in some as Catholic? Thanks.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Um. Per a comment that Acts 9:31 contains the phrase “**“Ekklesia kath olos” **(post #68) – which means the “Catholic Church”, I have not been able to find that. I have looked at three Greek/English Bible lexicons (two on-line and one I own) – and the phrase in all three simply reads “ oun Ekklesia kata” (“so the church throughout”) or a variant of that. The word “kata” here defined as “throughout” is said to mean “down from and according to”. I am Catholic, and I have seen taught here and in multiple sources that the first recorded use of the term “Catholic” was by Ignatius of Antioch in or around 110 A.D in one of his letters. Most of the scholars that I read would agree the word “Catholic” is not in scripture, but it doesn’t have to be (neither is Trinity, Bible, etc. - you know the argument). There was only one church started by Jesus in the 30’s, which passed on and taught what He taught. The same church existed in the 60’s, 90’s, 100’s etc. and up to now. Ignatius uses the term in 110 AD as if it were a well known term – but from when, nobody knows. Just wondered what lexicon defines “kath” or “kata” in some as Catholic? Thanks.

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

Catholic

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots).]

The model etymology

St. Ignatius

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

That’s the best I could do with Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, and what I could find online.

 

[JustaServant]

What I am saying is that the Church (collectively all denominations) has existed in one form or another since well before the first century.

STILL waiting for documentation…

Chirp…Chirp…Chirp…Chirp…Chirp…

yawns

nods off to sleep

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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!

For supporting documentation from a 1st century bishop, see here:

What was the first church?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-first-church.html

 

[confusedius]

The fact is the CC does know and have proven Her lineage!

For instance, if you have a problem with someone on that list, point it out and let us see your case against him. The list is not created in some Catholic’s mind. It is simply a record of history as it progresses.

OK- what proof can you or the Church you represent offer to categorically show that the first six on your list were indeed part of the “lineage”?<<

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

For supporting documentation from a 1st century bishop, see here:

What was the first church?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-first-church.html

Thanks Itsjustdave for the site…
I’ve learned a great deal here on CAF in hopes of defending the Catholic Church better.
I live in an area filled with Baptist that view early Church history with contempt.
One I debate with agrees that Christ founded a Church but NO WAY it’s The Catholic Church.
It looks like we have our work cut out for us…

Matthew

 

[guanophore]

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 very best literature available on this topic is the New Testament, a collection of letters and memoirs written by, for, and about Catholics.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, though. The Latin Rite was one of the later one’s to emerge. The Church was first Palestinian, and used Aramaic, then migrated to Antioch, and use Syriac. The Greek Rites also emerged as Paul traveled the Empire planting Churches. Later, Peter and Paul went to Rome, and built up the Church there.

 

[StevenFrancis]

**I think that your **problem is the same as many - if not most Protestants, in that you have a faulty understanding of “Church”.

The Church is ONE - just as God is ONE. When the Bible speaks of the Church at Corinth or Ephesus or Thessolonica - it is the SAME Church. The only difference is the venue - the location. It is the same today in Christ’s Church. We have Dioceses with parishes. These are NOT different Churches, simply different locations of the ONE trut Church.

Unfortunatley, the Protestant Revold splintered the unity that Christ prayed for in John 17. It created many “churches” - which, as “Dominus Iesus” points out, are not really churches in the full sense of the word but “ecclesial communitues” in need of returning home to full communion with THE Church.

To fully understand what Christ meant about establishing his Church - you need to accept the fact that there can only be ONE that is UNIFIED - not splintered . . .

This is a very important and salient point. One that seems to be nearly a constant as look through some of the questions asked here at CA.

Thank you,

Blessings,

Steven

 

[guanophore]

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.

Where do you think doctrine comes from?

Peter, Paul, and all the Apostles "made doctrine’ in the sense that they organized and presented the Teachings of Jesus to the Church. this is the “once for all” deposit of faith
given to the Church. Of course they had the authority and duty to tell the Churches what to believe! What else to you see in the Apostolic letters contained in the NT?

If the Apostles don’t have that authority, who does? The reason that Rome emerged in a place of primacy in terms of doctrinal authority is because Peter and Paul both labored there to build up the Church, and she had a whopping deposit of faith.

I agree, though on the “supremacy” issue. Supremacy is not the model of leadership taught by Christ. That is why the successor of Peter signs all his correspondence “Servant of the Servants of God”.

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

It may not have been called by that name, but the promise of Jesus to pray for Peter, that his faith not fail was there from the beginning. Jesus committed the duty of feeding and caring for the flock to Peter, and upheld Peter by grace. This responsibility was passed on to Peter’s successors to the present day. Did you really expect Peter to fulfill the task of feeding and guiding the flock apart from the infallibility of the Chief Shepherd?

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

This is an inaccurate statement on two counts. One, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha, and upon that Kepha, He built His church. Peter’s confession of faith is not separate from Peter’s person. The Church has always taken the two together. They were not separated until the Reformation, when people thought they needed to jettison the authority of the successor of Peter.

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

Oh, dear. This is just an ignorant statement. Try reading the Philokalia.

-there was reverence for celibacy until the 500s

This is an equally ignorant statement. One has to disregard so many NT passages and early writings to cling to such a notion.

-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).

I am not sure what “Mariology” means, but the reverence for the mother of Christ was held by all the Apostles, and prayers to her were entered into the liturgy in the early decades of the Church along with the other saints.

These were all the things that were introduced by the Catholic Church over time,

You noted above that there were other communities that trace their roots to the Apostles. If you are going to be consistent and honest, then you will find these Apostolic practices in all of those communities, some of which have no love lost on Catholics. That is what makes your whole polemic fall through. If they were introduced by Catholics over time, why do they exist in all those Apostolic non-Catholic communities?

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.

This is certainly the perspective of the Reformers, who wanted to get out from under the papal authority, so set aside God’s appointment in favor of their own choices.

 

[guanophore]

Actually - one perfect example of Papal Primacy was in the Letter of Clement - a 1st century document. It was written to the Church in Corinth regarding some presbyters that had been ousted. The people had no authority to do this and Clement ordered them to reinstate the presbyters.

It was written while the Apostle John was still alive - yet he was not appealed to in settling the matter because Clement was the Bishop of Rome - the Pope.

Right on elvisman!

But I think that they did try to appeal to John the Apostle without success:

**3 John 9-10

I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us. And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome the friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the church.
**

Another testimony that the Apostles did, in fact, have authority and that those who did not respect it were out of order.

 

[confusedius]

One I debate with agrees that Christ founded a Church but NO WAY it’s The Catholic Church.
It looks like we have our work cut out for us…

Matthew

Yes, you do, unless you just want a catholics-only “debate”. The problem I have is, God was only able to control Adam and Eve for a week or two, and that without most of the distractions that attended later life.

Yet, we are to believe that all who came after Jesus were somehow unable to drift from the script, so to speak, and so their opinions and conclusions are cast in granite for all time. Really? The gaps in the story are just too big to ignore…

james

 

[guanophore]

But this is what I am trying to find out. You say you can “physically” prove that the Roman Catholic Church is “the first church;” so I am asking you to show us where it says “Roman Catholic” in the Bible.

The Church has always been collectively a group of churches to make one church, like Father, Son & Holy Spirit make one God.

The only thing you can show is that The Roman Catholic Denomination was one of the early NT churches.

This is nothing but a strawman, P101. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and since the Catholic Church produced the bible, rather than being extracted from it, no effort was ever made to create a complete compendium of the faith.

Your false presupposition that everything taught by the Apostles must be found in Scripture cannot be applied to the Church founded upon them. The Bible does not even say this of itself.

BTW, the earliest use of the word “catholic” applied to the Church founded by Christ is found in Acts 9:31.

Catholicism is not a "denomination"either. To denominate is to take one’s name from another. Denominations are defined by which, and how much of Catholic faith they reject.

 

[guanophore]

Wrong. I would have responded sooner, but either I misread your first sentence, or you should edit before posting.

Sounds like you are rather familiar with the response to which your second sentence alludes, so no need to repeat it. The fact is, you don’t KNOW, and you can’t PROVE. Want to see my “list” proving I am descended from Noah?

Please understand I have no problem with belief, and I respect your beliefs. Just don’t turn them into facts when they are not.

Moving on, questions I have been pondering on: If the Lutheran religion was a “splinter” from Catholicism, why should they not also feel they go all the way back to Christ? What about Orthodox? Are all “first” Churches?

james

Luther departed from the faith of the Apostles, created his own doctrines that were considered heretical. This is what all the denominations have done. They do so with the purest of intentions. They wanted a more pure, more “correct” church and practice. They did not realize that it was the people that needed to be reformed, not the doctrines of Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It may also be helpful to consider what a Protestant patristic scholar wrote regarding the papacy…

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes says, “The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years.” Kelly lists the papacy from Peter to John Paul II. During the time of the Arian controversy in the fourth century, Kelly had this to say about the papacy:

“Since its occupant [ie. the pope] was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 417)

Similarly,** Eastern Orthodox** scholars describe the teaching of St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), the first century bishop of Antioch, where they were first called Christian:

Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century… Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 50- 110] uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages. … The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’** So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome." ((THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992, pgs. 124-127)