Which church began first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DEESYPAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DEESYPAL

Guest
My friend who is a Greek Orthodox believes that his church began before the catholic church, since St Paul preached in Corinth and began the church there. My friend also pointed out that orthodox means the right church.

I tried to explain that the Catholic church was built on St Peter, by Jesus Christ obviously who founded the universal church, but my friend goes on saying that Jesus couldnt have started it because in his time he was following the Jewsh traditions.

Im not at all familiar with the history of the Greek orthodox church
can anyone help me to shut my friend up!
 
40.png
DEESYPAL:
My friend who is a Greek Orthodox believes that his church began before the catholic church, since St Paul preached in Corinth and began the church there. My friend also pointed out that orthodox means the right church.

I tried to explain that the Catholic church was built on St Peter, by Jesus Christ obviously who founded the universal church, but my friend goes on saying that Jesus couldnt have started it because in his time he was following the Jewsh traditions.

Im not at all familiar with the history of the Greek orthodox church
can anyone help me to shut my friend up!
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church was started in Matthew 16 when Jesus said to Peter, " you are Peter(which means Rock),upon this Rock I will build my Church." Jesus was quoting Isaiah 22 with this passage and the next few verses. This is proof that Jesus was establishing Peter as the first person in a succession.

Peter was the first pope from that time on and JPII is his successor. It does not matter what the jewish traditions were

Orthodox simply means correct. Catholics call themselves orthodox. The eastern Orthodox - Greek, Russian, etc. - stemmed from the schism of 1054. Before that they were part of the Catholic Church. They were like what the Eastern Catholic Churches are today.
 
40.png
DEESYPAL:
My friend who is a Greek Orthodox believes that his church began before the catholic church, since St Paul preached in Corinth and began the church there. My friend also pointed out that orthodox means the right church.

I tried to explain that the Catholic church was built on St Peter, by Jesus Christ obviously who founded the universal church, but my friend goes on saying that Jesus couldnt have started it because in his time he was following the Jewsh traditions.

Im not at all familiar with the history of the Greek orthodox church
can anyone help me to shut my friend up!
Click to expand...
Your friend’s church was Catholic back when St. Paul preached in Corinth, because St. Paul was Catholic.
 
We were all one church until the Roman empire split into two factions, one centered around Rome, the other around Constantinople. The eastern church became the epicenter of the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as its capital city. The patriarch there for more political reasons than anything, came under the control of the eastern emperor. There was a split in the two churches during events surrounding the crusades (this event is commonly known as the Great Schism) with the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicating each other. When Constantinople fell to the Muslims, the sold the patriarchate to the highest bidder, so it changed hands often. There is alot of history behind this split, and a great deal of petty theological differences that are more prideful than charitable.

The only obstacle to full ecumenism is prideful leadership (IMHO). I am sure that Fr Ambrose is going to rebuke me and tell me how off base I am (or at least that I am only conveying the Roman perspective). However, the fact remains, for the first thousand years of Christianity, there was only one Church. That the Orthodox have always considered themselves a “separate” group is a fallacy, one that is easily disproved by reading the early christian writers, particulary St. Ignatius of Antioch.
 
40.png
DEESYPAL:
Where exactly does Jesus quote that in Isaiah 22?
Click to expand...
Jesus does not directly quote Isaiah 22. That chapter holds the account of Eliakim, who is the Chief Steward or Prime Minister of the kingdom. He will receive the key to the kingdom, and whatever he opens shall not be shut, and whatever he closes shall not be opened. It is a direct parallel to the keys in Matt 16. Peter receives the keys and whatever he binds shall not be loosed, and whatever he looses shall not be bound. In essence our Lord is making Peter the Prime Minister of His kingdom.
 
40.png
DEESYPAL:
Where exactly does Jesus quote that in Isaiah 22?
Click to expand...
If you look at Matt.16;16-19 and compare it to Isaiah22;15-22. Jesus is drawing from there. Like Shebna had the keys to the house of David, Christ was giving the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Shebna could open and close and what he opened was open and what he closed was closed. Similarly Peter could bind and loose, what he loosed on earth was loosed in Heaven, what he bound on earth was bound on heaven.

The keys represent authority. They are mentioned in Revelation, in Isaiah, and in Matthew.

Scott Hahn mentions in his speaches about the pope here is a link that has some Scott Hahn speaches, one of them mentions it. Look along the left side of the page.

kensmen.com/catholic/rock.html
 
Hi,

My roomate is Orthodox. They are very much like us. We were basically one and the same church until we split almost in half in 1054AD. We reunited shortly in the 1400s or so, then split again. They are stubborn. They are not in communion with us for a variety or reasons. The split was mainly over the difference in using leavened and unleavened bread in the Eucharist. They believe that Peter was “first among equals” as oposed to holding a primacy. When I was converting my friend almost had me thinking that I was picking second best. Until my sponsor, who is also a friend in the same group, had me read this book “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic”. It is a very good book and helped to set me straight on how the early church always looked to the Chair of Peter to get things straightened out and corrected. Later, I also read “The Russian Church and the Papacy” which even strengthened my position that the Catholic Church was the right place and the papacy was ligitimate. A few questions for your friend;

Why didn’t they use the term Othodox Church in the Nicene Creed?

Why didn’t St. Ignatius (they really like to claim him) mention the Othodox Church in his letter instead of the Catholic Church?

Why did St. Ignatius address the Roman Church with so much more praise and respect than the other churches he wrote on his way to Martydom in 110AD?

Why is it that early saints in the Othodox Church can be documented through there letters and agreement with statements made at councils accepted the primacy of the Roman Church?

The fact is that the Othodox are wishy washy on this subject through out history because they have counted on the Roman Church on many occasions to get them out of heresy. In lieu of these heresies that the east church often fell into, they could only maintain their Apostolic succession from Christ through the Roman Church which was founded by Peter. They will talk strong against the papacy and how it suppose to be council that rules the Church, but they are physically unable to have and ecunemical council anymore. This is why they have neglected to have any councils since before they split with the Catholic Church.

They are our brothers and the excummunication has been lifted on both sides. We are just not in complete communion with one another. Even the Catechism says our differences are so small that it is a wonder that we have remain out of communion with one another. Unfortunately, most of them here is the U.S. do not agree with us on that. They say the only way we will be joined again is if we revert back to the way they believe we all were in the first millenia. They will disagree with protestants on every argument on everything except those made against the papacy and the primacy of Rome. There they almost join hands except for the argument that Peter was not even in Rome.

Your friend will not change Churches because their pride is very deep. That is OK because we recognize their Apostolic Succession and Christ real presence in their Eucharist. He is OK there. But, you can shut him up and make him respect the Catholic Church.

One more thing he might bring up is how we attacked them in the fourth crusade. I think that was the number. Anyway, they are very bitter about that. We did do it, but not because the Church or the Pope requested it. It was because the men sent out did not follow orders and were looking more for riches to take. In defense you can remind him that at times the Eastern Church joined forces with the Muslims and attacked the west. Their is a 2000 year history with a lot of baggage between the two of us. Read those books, you’ll be impressed with the info. I think you can buy them both here at this site.
St. Gerard
 
The Baptist church. The church all started with John the Baptist. That’s what I was once told.smile;
 
The meaning of “church”, ekklesia, is out calling. It is not the kind of a word that can apply to a building, nor is it ever used in the New Testament to describe an organization made up of a number of congregations that have been organized together to form a denomination.

Now let’s take a look at Matt.16:13-19:

*13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. *

Rome teaches that in this passage Jesus established his church upon Peter (supposedly the first pope) as the foundation. Although Jesus probably spoke Aramaic the Greek text renders “rock” in two different ways here: "Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church. The meaning of petros is a single rock, perhaps even a boulder. But petra, on the other hand, denotes a bedrock.

In Matthew 16:18, the church Christ would build was still future. The simple future tense of the verb “will build” should settle for everyone that the church did not exist before the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit baptized believers into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). This was a new beginning and brought into being the spiritual body of Christ (Eph 1:22-23; 2:19-22). It is called, “the church which is His body”, “a holy temple in the Lord” and “a habitation of God through the Spirit”.

The “body of Christ” is made up of all believers in this church age. All who have been saved in this day of grace have been baptized by the Spirit into the body.

The true Church started in Jerusalem on the day of Pentacost.
 
40.png
rom323:
Rome teaches that in this passage Jesus established his church upon Peter (supposedly the first pope) as the foundation. Although Jesus probably spoke Aramaic the Greek text renders “rock” in two different ways here: "Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church. The meaning of petros is a single rock, perhaps even a boulder. But petra, on the other hand, denotes a bedrock.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of petra is wrong. Petra means rock.

Original WordWord Origin peÑtra from the same as (4074)Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Petra pet’-ra studylight.org/images/audio.gif Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Feminine 6:95,834 Definition

  1. *]a rock, cliff or ledge

    1. *]a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
      *]a rock, a large stone
      *]metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul

      Original WordWord Origin PeÑtrov apparently a primary wordTransliterated WordPhonetic Spelling Petros pet’-ros studylight.org/images/audio.gif Parts of SpeechTDNT Noun Masculine 6:100,835 Definition Peter = “a rock or a stone”

      1. *]one of the twelve disciples of Jesus

        studylight.org/lex/grk/

        They both have the same meaning. The reason for the change from petros to petra is because petra is a feminine noun that is unfit for using for the name of a man. That is why it is changed to the masculine, petros. Most protestant scholars would agree with the Catholic Church on this matter. For example W.F. Albright.

        “Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter.” In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus’ reference to the rock point only to Peter’s faith or confession. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” We will see."

        Jesus was drawing from Isaiah 22 in this passage where he gives Peter the keys. Jesus is establishing him as like a new high preist.
 
Arguing which church was first, catholic or orthodox is kinda silly, because before any churches split away we all believed the same thing, and were considered one church! There was only one set of accepted beliefs, with churches in all sorts of different countries–with the only differences being culture and language.
God Bless,
Elizabeth
 
I tried to explain that the Catholic church was built on St Peter, by Jesus Christ obviously who founded the universal church, but my friend goes on saying that Jesus couldnt have started it because in his time he was following the Jewsh traditions.

Response:
Yes, Jesus was a Jew. But He also saw Himself as the telos of the Old Covenant.

Rom323,

I think you are out of touch with contemporary biblical scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant. It has been admitted that Peter (because of his faith) was the rock Jesus was talking about. I think we should stop with all this trouble of trying to show that Peter was not the rock in Matthew 16:18

As far as the keys, with your comments, I can simply say that Peter got the keys at Pentecost. Please go here:

apolonio.blogspot.com

Go down to “Musings on the papacy.”
 
40.png
Coptic:
Arguing which church was first, catholic or orthodox is kinda silly, because before any churches split away we all believed the same thing, and were considered one church! There was only one set of accepted beliefs, with churches in all sorts of different countries–with the only differences being culture and language.
God Bless,
Elizabeth
Click to expand...
I wish it was like that now.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
We were all one church until the Roman empire split into two factions, one centered around Rome, the other around Constantinople. The eastern church became the epicenter of the Byzantine Empire, with Constantinople as its capital city. The patriarch there for more political reasons than anything, came under the control of the eastern emperor. There was a split in the two churches during events surrounding the crusades (this event is commonly known as the Great Schism) with the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicating each other. When Constantinople fell to the Muslims, the sold the patriarchate to the highest bidder, so it changed hands often. There is alot of history behind this split, and a great deal of petty theological differences that are more prideful than charitable.

The only obstacle to full ecumenism is prideful leadership (IMHO). I am sure that Fr Ambrose is going to rebuke me and tell me how off base I am (or at least that I am only conveying the Roman perspective). However, the fact remains, for the first thousand years of Christianity, there was only one Church. That the Orthodox have always considered themselves a “separate” group is a fallacy, one that is easily disproved by reading the early christian writers, particulary St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Click to expand...
Scott

well stated and I agree with your take. So if you get a rebuke I will receive the same rebuke beside you. I think that you are correct that prideful leadership has a lot to do with the refusal to reunite and also what I see as a stubborn refusal to accept dogma that points to our understanding of Christ, not just Marian dogma.

Maggie
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
well stated and I agree with your take. So if you get a rebuke I will receive the same rebuke beside you. I think that you are correct that prideful leadership has a lot to do with the refusal to reunite and also what I see as a stubborn refusal to accept dogma that points to our understanding of Christ, not just Marian dogma.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is exactly the Orthodox take on the matter - so no rebukes for anybody 🙂

It was, from the Orthodox viepoint, indeed pride which caused one bishop to assume the position of Universal Bishop and attempt to assume supreme and immediate authority over every bishop in the Church,and to reckon himself superior to Ecumenical Councils.

Allied with that pride was a failure of charity. Lack of charity resulted in bringing about a schism which split Christendom in two. Charity and humility would never have permitted one bishop to go against the Ecumenical Councils and change the Creed with no consultation with the rest of the Church. That could happen only though pride and lack of charity.

So I agree with what you have both written.
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set”
-Proverbs 22.28
 
40.png
jimmy:
The Catholic Church was started in Matthew 16 when Jesus said to Peter, " you are Peter(which means Rock),upon this Rock I will build my Church." Jesus was quoting Isaiah 22 with this passage and the next few verses. This is proof that Jesus was establishing Peter as the first person in a succession.

Peter was the first pope from that time on and JPII is his successor. It does not matter what the jewish traditions were

Orthodox simply means correct. Catholics call themselves orthodox. The eastern Orthodox - Greek, Russian, etc. - stemmed from the schism of 1054. Before that they were part of the Catholic Church. They were like what the Eastern Catholic Churches are today.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent answer. Matthew 16:18-19 tells it all.
 
I told you, although he was a bit more clever than I. Touche Papa Ambrose, ke efcharisto yia to plirofories.
Fr Ambrose:
Yes, this is exactly the Orthodox take on the matter - so no rebukes for anybody 🙂

It was, from the Orthodox viepoint, indeed pride which caused one bishop to assume the position of Universal Bishop and attempt to assume supreme and immediate authority over every bishop in the Church,and to reckon himself superior to Ecumenical Councils.

Allied with that pride was a failure of charity. Lack of charity resulted in bringing about a schism which split Christendom in two. Charity and humility would never have permitted one bishop to go against the Ecumenical Councils and change the Creed with no consultation with the rest of the Church. That could happen only though pride and lack of charity.

So I agree with what you have both written.
“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set”
-Proverbs 22.28
Click to expand...
 
40.png
DEESYPAL:
My friend who is a Greek Orthodox believes that his church began before the catholic church, since St Paul preached in Corinth and began the church there. My friend also pointed out that orthodox means the right church.

I tried to explain that the Catholic church was built on St Peter, by Jesus Christ obviously who founded the universal church, but my friend goes on saying that Jesus couldnt have started it because in his time he was following the Jewsh traditions.

Im not at all familiar with the history of the Greek orthodox church
can anyone help me to shut my friend up!
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is the one and the first true Church as Christ, as you correctly stated, had established and with Peter has being it’s first Pope. It can claim direct descendency back to Peter.

Incidently, every Church since is a deviant sect as Christ had called it’s flock, and only some have yet returned. Neither is there such a thing as freedom of religion since.

Courtesy Radio Replies, Vol 1

There is no one Greek Orthodox Church. There are many independant Greek Churches. They originated by rebellion against the CC in the ninth century, and have split up into many different allegiances. As long as they refuse to submit to the authority of the CC they are as much outside the CC as the protestant variations. They are both schismatical and heretical.

Andy
 
:rotfl:
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
I told you, although he was a bit more clever than I. Touche Papa Ambrose, ke efcharisto yia to plirofories.
Click to expand...
Can I join the Curmudgeons’ Club too? :whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top