Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

[Bbrdrd]

Good question. I like JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines". Also Phillip Schaff's work on church history is older but a fine source. And just about anything from Jaroslav Pelikan.

I'll definitely check out some of those. Given your name and avatar am I correct in assuming you're sympathetic to Eastern theology? That's one area I think I really would benefit from more familiarity with so looking at Pelikan's books I already know the first one I'll get. If so, any good readers to get an overview on the disputes and threads within the modern Eastern rites? So much of the history I've read only focuses on the Latin church.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Well, Ok. The office, or the Chair, is a seat of judgement and it can survive a vacancy. Happens when a Pope dies. A Catholic can think Peter is always sitting there anyway. The Church is Triumphant now.

Vacancy, maybe, but the events I mentioned were more than just vacancies. For example at one point the french kings were naming popes galore so the claim that the line of popes stretches all the way back to Peter is void. There is no apostolic succession that goes unbroken through history as far as the papacy or any other source of Catholic dogma. And that's not even addressing the manner in which papal power expanded over time and flucuated with regards to the authority of councils. Some of the claims were later demonstrated to be based on fraudulent documents like the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals yet the Catholics still base their claims on a known lie.

 

[Jackson123]

Well, Ok. The office, or the Chair, is a seat of judgement and it can survive a vacancy. Happens when a Pope dies. A Catholic can think Peter is always sitting there anyway. The Church is Triumphant now.

If pope Peter still there than pope Francis don't need to replace Peter.

 

[Blik]

Anyway. Back to the OP. The oldest faith would be proto -Judaism as revealed to Adam and the patriarchs. The oldest Christian body would be the proto-orthodox as exemplified by the church in the book of Acts. This body became the church catholic (meaning universal, NOT Rome). Rome is indeed ancient, but not ancient enough and certainly not catholic. Rome was part of of the church catholic in the west but over time became heterodox. As to when? I’m not sure you can put a date on it. Error began creeping in very early especially once the church became the official religion of the Empire under Theodosious I. Writers at the time knew there were problems thats why you see the rise of monasticism in the fourth century.

We need to recognize that the first churches after Christ were what we label as the church of the apostles. This church was very different from the church of today and to learn of how it was through writers like Clement and Origen.

This church was radically changed when Constantine "reformed" it so it would be the popular church of his country. Before, the church developed their way of living around the Lord and would have nothing to do with the way people outside the church lived. Their clothes, their entertainment, everything was different.

The first thing Constantine did was gather a council of members (Nicaea Council) to unite Christianity. Before, any problems were taken to the church they felt was closest to the apostles like in Acts when they must decide on what laws for gentiles.

The main enemy of the first churches were the Gnostics, now other false prophets were springing up.

Before the council, the idea of any change in doctrine from men was not accepted, The counsel said it was the Holy Spirit telling them what to do so their ideas, they said, were from God. So they made Sunday to be treated as Sabbath the law, they added Easter as law. Government became the guide for the church.

Before Christians were those who believed the ways of Christ were more important than the ways of the world, now it became popular to be Christian and attracted lukewarm Christians.

 

[Marcelo]

Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

No, the oldest Christian faith is the one of the apostles. Neither is it the oldest church because it was started around the year 313 by emperor Constantino.

If you like the Catholic church you can stay there, but don't do what many priests do. The same advice is aplicable to protestants: "don't do what many pastors do".

Whatever denomination you attend, you have to follow the New Testament doctrine and you'll be saved. If you don't follow this doctrine, it doesn't matter what denomination you're a member of -- you won't be saved.

 

[Benadam]

Vacancy, maybe, but the events I mentioned were more than just vacancies. For example at one point the french kings were naming popes galore so the claim that the line of popes stretches all the way back to Peter is void. There is no apostolic succession that goes unbroken through history as far as the papacy or any other source of Catholic dogma. And that's not even addressing the manner in which papal power expanded over time and flucuated with regards to the authority of councils. Some of the claims were later demonstrated to be based on fraudulent documents like the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals yet the Catholics still base their claims on a known lie.

The main objective of the Pope is to preserve the faith. If they had not it is likely you would know Jesus as just a historical figure.

As for the oldest, what's more important is, that there is a community that surrounded Jesus since the beginning. That community received the promise of preservation. You must point out that community to persuade at all.

For example at one point the french kings were naming popes galore so the claim that the line of popes stretches all the way back to Peter is void

Not hardly. That's why I brought up vacancy. As long as another can eventually validly occupy the Chair all is well.

 

[Bbrdrd]

The main objective of the Pope is to preserve the faith. If they had not it is likely you would know Jesus as just a historical figure.

As for the oldest, what's more important is, that there is a community that surrounded Jesus since the beginning. That community received the promise of preservation. You must point out that community to persuade at all.
Not hardly. That's why I brought up vacancy. As long as another can eventually validly occupy the Chair all is well.

No, most popes were most interested in their secular power. The gospel prevailed inspite of the ravenous wolves that so often traded the gospel for a dime. Every step to spread it was resisted by the institutional church from allowing the preaching of the gospel by any Christian to translating the Scripture into vulgar tongues. That you're willing to take spiritual advice from men who seek to profit off the gospel is rather sad.

 

[Athanasius377]

I'll definitely check out some of those. Given your name and avatar am I correct in assuming you're sympathetic to Eastern theology? That's one area I think I really would benefit from more familiarity with so looking at Pelikan's books I already know the first one I'll get. If so, any good readers to get an overview on the disputes and threads within the modern Eastern rites? So much of the history I've read only focuses on the Latin church.

I wouldn't say I know anything about Eastern theology, lol. I attended an Orthodox parish for a time while in college. I find Eastern theology to be, well, difficult. They don't have the same categories as we do in the west. Its difficult to even try and explain and to top it off I don't think I understand either. I simply chose the avatar for my screename, Athanasius. Athanasius is a hero of mine because he stood firm in the faith and even stared down the Roman Empire for the sake of the Gospel. Thus the icon of Athanasius as my avatar.
As to Pelikan converting to EO, I don't know why exactly. He didn't give an answer while he was alive so we are left guessing.

 

[Bbrdrd]

I wouldn't say I know anything about Eastern theology, lol. I attended an Orthodox parish for a time while in college. I find Eastern theology to be, well, difficult. They don't have the same categories as we do in the west. Its difficult to even try and explain and to top it off I don't think I understand either. I simply chose the avatar for my screename, Athanasius. Athanasius is a hero of mine because he stood firm in the faith and even stared down the Roman Empire for the sake of the Gospel. Thus the icon of Athanasius as my avatar.
As to Pelikan converting to EO, I don't know why exactly. He didn't give an answer while he was alive so we are left guessing.

Ah alright, from what I know of Eastern theology I can completely understand what you mean. I have always been fascinated by the East but that is partly because it all seems so mysterious to me especially as they never fully adopted the practice of trying to systematize as we in the west have. Rediscovering abit of the mysticism I think can do well for Western theology.

One thing that really fascinates me is that the west is largely split on doctrinal lines, whereas the East is split on ethnic lines.

 

[Benadam]

No, most popes were most interested in their secular power. The gospel prevailed inspite of the ravenous wolves that so often traded the gospel for a dime. Every step to spread it was resisted by the institutional church from allowing the preaching of the gospel by any Christian to translating the Scripture into vulgar tongues. That you're willing to take spiritual advice from men who seek to profit off the gospel is rather sad.

You aren't being reasonable but emotional in your judgement of the Catholic Church. All too obvious by the all or nothing approach that results in a blanket judgement of all Catholic clergy as evil cons scheming to line their pockets.

 

[TMS]

It is true that the roman catholic church ruled the known world but that doesn't make them Gods faithful, or true to the word.
Recorded History was greatly altered by the ruling leaders, but one thing is sure, it was called the dark ages, and the church did not allow the word to be read or studied by everyday people. They became rich and powerful by controling the conscience. Try to find a history that is not altered by the catholic church.
2 things that the reformation pushed,
1... salvation, righteousness by grace alone.
2.... The word of God, Bible is the source of truth, test all things to the word.

 

[garee]

I've been posting scriptural support. This is evidence.Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. Odd name not used before. Why does God change names?

God changes names to edify himself . Not to venerate Peter the serial deniers .He changed Saul to Paul .Abram to Abraham Jacob to Israel. All have there purpose in the name used to venerate God not men .

Peter which means rock or stones is used to represent all believer that make up the spiritual unseen house called the church .the bride of Christ.

1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.


1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Peter was forgiven of his blasphemy against the apostle the Son of man, Jesus in Mathew 16. . Today that is not possible

.Catholicism has made the Popes their very own Peter (another christ, another gospel ).Not having a understanding of the word "apostle"

Matthew 12:31-32 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

[garee]

You aren't being reasonable but emotional in your judgement of the Catholic Church. All too obvious by the all or nothing approach that results in a blanket judgement of all Catholic clergy as evil cons scheming to line their pockets.

Just the ones that demand they be venerated by the non venerable pew sitters. . The Bible teaches us not to trust adaysman called Popes . God is not a man . Even Jesus the son of man refused to be venerated in respect to what the eyes see.

When called good master. The Son of man the apostle Jesus immediately gave glory to the father who worked in him. Saying one is good God. No man cans serve two teaching masters .The flesh seen and eternal God not seen.

Matthew 19:16-17 King James Version (KJV) And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

[Dino246]

God is not a man . Even Jesus the son of man refused to be venerated in respect to what the eyes see.

Wrong. Thomas worshipped Jesus, saying, "My Lord and my God" and Jesus neither deflected the worship nor corrected Thomas.

Why is it that you can't understand the plain text of Scripture?

 

[Bbrdrd]

You aren't being reasonable but emotional in your judgement of the Catholic Church. All too obvious by the all or nothing approach that results in a blanket judgement of all Catholic clergy as evil cons scheming to line their pockets.

It's not an all-or-nothing approach, it's an assessment of the church at large. The individual clergy within the church vary just as with any other church group, but the trajectory of the offices of the church has been to try to profit off of Christ's sacrifice. The Catholic church has repeatedly been the enemy of the transmission of the gospel far more often than it served as faciliator, and the crimes I listed of the church speak to its position as enemies of the true gospel. If the church was concerned with Christ's message plenary indulgences never would have been an issue, translation of the Bible never would have been an issue, and lay preachers never would have been an issue. But the organization is nothing but a human power structure, bent on gaining and keeping authority above all else.

 

[Benadam]

If the church was concerned with Christ's message plenary indulgences never would have been an

Point out the one that gathered around Christ since the beginning. It's on earth somewhere teaching ...without that it's like a problem with no solution. We should know that without the solution there is no reason to complain.

 

[Benadam]

God changes names to edify himself .

Are you sure you mean edify?

 

[Benadam]

Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments

Jesus is revealing His Divinity to the rich young man. Only God is good.

 

[garee]

Jesus is revealing His Divinity to the rich young man. Only God is good.

Yes he denied that authority as the Son of man seen an apostle who was sent with the unseen will of the father .

Gave glory to the unseen father. you could say only God unseen is Good. Good represents the unseen God as a his sign or seal of approval.

 

[garee]

Are you sure you mean edify?

Edify or venerate the unseen God . God whose name is Jealous will not share his unseen glory or power with corrupted flesh and blood . . .

self edification .

Matthew 3:17 King James Version (KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.