Roman Catholics

[brotus maximus]

My family and I were discussing varius thing the other night when we came apon the topic of religion and I had once heard that roman catholics were one of the oldest religions when it came to christianity, now my problem is when did the romans start believing or (start the religion). if some one could give me some insight on this stuff ( i am confused on the whole matter)

sincerly

brotus maximus

A.K.A

kris

[Primus Pilus]

My family and I were discussing varius thing the other night when we came apon the topic of religion and I had once heard that roman catholics were one of the oldest religions when it came to christianity, now my problem is when did the romans start believing or (start the religion). if some one could give me some insight on this stuff ( i am confused on the whole matter)

sincerly

brotus maximus

A.K.A

kris

 

There were many early sects and organizations. The Catholics and the eastern Orthodox church both claim their earliest foundations to the same period... essentially tied together with the lives of the Apostles and Paul of Tarsus, among others. Either way, the 2 churches co-exist as essentially the first and only surviving 'ancient' churches of the Christ.

 

Others are better suited to the history of actual Catholicism than I, but here is a brief overview of Christianity.

Christianity History

[Ursus]

I'd like to write an in-depth article about this someday, unless someone beats me to it.

 

Essentially, the version of Christianity supervised by Constantine and most of the Bishops became "mainstream" Christianity, sometimes called "Paulist Christianity" since it owes so much to Paul. Other sects of Christianity, like the Gnostics and Donatists, were eventually considered "heresies" and snuffed out.

 

As far as Paulist Christianity goes, most of the ancient centers were in the Greek speaking East, aside from the notable center of Rome in the West. Rome and the Eastern centers were separated by language, but they also started to grow apart in theological principles and doctrines of Church organization. At some point we can speak of Paulist Christianity splitting into the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic.

 

 

Yes, the Roman Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox) are heirs to ancient Christianity. They were around before Protestants, Mormons, etc. The churches even existed as an underground movement before the Bible was codified, something they enjoy pointing out to the newer churches.

[Neos Dionysos]

Techincally, Niceane Chrisitianity, and the later split of Catholicism and Orthodox can say that were saved by Valens because of his perseuctions of them and his timely death shortly after a few years of intense attacks to the point where they almost ceased to exist. Following Adrianople, they could claim divine justice and intervention and this sect of Christianity was able to gather great support and followers and eventually triumph over the other 3 dominant ones during the late 4th century.

[Theodosius]

Ursus,

 

Both East and West, as you rightly assert, adhered to the Pauline strictures, obviously with the exceptions of the various heresies, mostly Gnostic (again, mostly Alexandrine) and the Nestorian (mostly Antiochian). They obviously adhered to the precepts expounded by St Paul, but fell wayward due to misinterpretation or whatever else.

 

The five Ancient Sees (Rome, Constnatinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) for the most part followed and maintained Apostolic Succession as well as, the Synod. This is at the core of the Schism, really. The filioque if explained further can be "accepted" by the Orthodox, but the insertion and its attempted enforcement on the East (cf. Council of Florence) never held sway. During Ottoman ruled Greece, a book by a gentleman named Vulgaris (I may be wring there) accounts for joint liturgical ceremony on the Greek islands amongst other things.

 

As I said, the issue of Apostolic Succession and the Synod are at the heart of the split. No learned Orthodox can ever state that Rome does not maintain a valid Apostolic Succession (the lifting of the anathemas of 1965 by Patriarch Athenagoras is proof of this). The main problem lies in the perception of the Synod, ie. the College of Bishops, which in the East, as was originally adhered to by Rome as well for a LONG time, is still held as the basic premise on which the militant Church is founded upon and as is found when Christ gathered His Twelve Apostles. Unfortunately, Rome due to History and its associated sideffects, led to the Roman pontificate adopting the monarchical role in addition to the spiritual, the issue of Primacy as it always was versus the Supremacy outllok. Once this is overcome, the rest of the problems that seperate East and West can be mostly overcome.

 

So for someone to seperate the East and West (ie. Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism), slaps in the face of historical reality. Both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as you state Ursus, are heirs of ancient Christendom, for there was the time when both were one...

 

I hope I have not gone off-topic here.

 

 

-edit-

 

forgot to put in one Ecclesiological premise in the post.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Theodosius

[Ursus]

I hope I have not gone off-topic here.

 

 

Not at all. In fact, allow me to extend you a very hearty welcome to the UNRV Temple.

[roman wargamer]

I had once heard that roman catholics were one of the oldest religions ... christianity, brotus maximus

 

officially, the name Roman Catholic came to be at 800 CE.

 

now my problem is when did the romans start believing or (start the religion [catholic]). brotus maximus

 

the first century Chruch of Christ is monotheism and believed in the man Jesus as the Saviour.

 

christian was a very minor religion only and even subjected to extreme extermination,

by way of social and official state persecution, until Constantine's Edict of Tolerance at 323 AD.

 

Jesus become only god at the Council of Niceia with the emperor decree as imperial law.

and even the Holy Spirit become only god more later.

 

the christinity was slowly romanized from 325 AD , little by little the Rome pagan custom and tradition

were added as thought they were original or true christian doctrinal tenets, by virtue of council.

 

After the christian leadership was controled by the Roman emperor, through political coup d etat,

the persecuted church suddenly became the persecutor church then on, they put to death all who

will objected to their rule, simply by declaring them heresy with the arm and sword of the state.

 

Roman Catholic was the romanized and paganized christianity.

 

if you will look at the Bible, original christian and later catholic belief was very different now aday.

[Theodosius]

Thank you very much Ursus, I'm glad to have found this site. I already feel at home!:-)

 

officially, the name Roman Catholic came to be at 800 CE.

 

The Catholic Church is the Church Universal, both Militant and Triumphant. Unfortunately, until the four Eastern Sees and the one Western See reunite, the name applied is somewhat (I am not wanting to slander Rome here) of a non-starter.

 

the first century Chruch of Christ is monotheism and believed in the man Jesus as the Saviour. [...]

 

Jesus become only god at the Council of Niceia with the emperor decree as imperial law.

and even the Holy Spirit become only god more later.

 

Yes and no. There are enough utterances in John's Gospel to dispel your second last notion. It is only that the terminology had not developed far enough to have enabled the Apologists to have formulated the precise definition. Origen's use of homoousion (ὁμοούσιον [hope the Greek shows up here]) allowed for its adoption in Nicea. cf. St Athanasius' adage, that a man nor an angel could have saved man, only God.

 

The same occured with the Holy Spirit, where you have the pneumatomachoi (πνευματομάχοι = fighters of the Spirit) and through this heresy, St Basil and then St Gregory the Theologian expounded the doctrine of the Third Person.

 

You must realise one thing. That the way in which Christian dogma has been developed, has been through the rise and battle against heresy. What do I mean? The faithful experience God's energies within the Church, yet human nature is such that we desire to read into something that may not be there or whatever. This gives rise to a differing thought, ie a heresy (in ancient Greece, this term I think, from memory, was employed within the medical field as those who held differing opinion on this or that subject). The Catholic, read Universal, Church comes together at a Synod and expounds the doctrine which is not something new, but is a reaffirmation of that which is already practised by the faithful, but needs to be articulated.

 

For example, it is being said within theological and Ecclesiastical circles, that if an Eighth Ecumenical Council were to be convened, the hot topic to be discussed will be the Ark of Salvation, ie., the Church itself. It is something that the faithful live, but needs to be further articulated as is already found within the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed "In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".

 

the christinity was slowly romanized from 325 AD , little by little the Rome pagan custom and tradition

were added as thought they were original or true christian doctrinal tenets, by virtue of council.

 

Don't forget that all the Ecumenical Council were held in the East.

 

After the christian leadership was controled by the Roman emperor, through political coup d etat,

the persecuted church suddenly became the persecutor church then on, they put to death all who

will objected to their rule, simply by declaring them heresy with the arm and sword of the state.

 

Yes and no. The unfortunate history of human adventure. You are right, there are many instances in which the temporal powers of this Earth mixed with the spiritual. But in all honesty, this did have its benefits too, such as the restoration of the icons, which saw two great Fathers of the Eastern Church expound the dogma of the Faith as it related to the icon! (viz. St Theodore the Studite and St John of Damascus), and which after 1264 led to the flourishing of the greatest period of Byzantine art and culture.

 

Roman Catholic was the romanized and paganized christianity.

 

Especially post-Vatican 1 and pre-Vatican II. The fact that Rome is attempting mutual rapproachment with the East is evidence enough that things are changing.

 

if you will look at the Bible, original christian and later catholic belief was very different now aday.

Not entirely true, given the fact that ordinarily (at least with Orthodoxy) local customs give each local Church different colour. The dogma has remained (within Orthodoxy, it has not convened any new Ecumenical Councils after the Seventh) in tact. Roman Catholicism has unfortunately, added a fair few new pieces of dogma: Immaculate Conception, Infallibility of the Pope etc., and this without consulting the East. Hopefully the future will see a rectification of these wrongdoings (on both sides mind you).

[Virgil61]

I would add here that the official name and the description the Vatican uses to describe itself it the "Catholic Church" and not the "Roman" Catholic Church. Technically the Roman Catholic Church is only one of the Catholic rites within the church including Maronite, Byzantine, Ukrainian and so on (there are something like 21 "Catholic" rites under the Pope).

[brotus maximus]

thanks guys for the info it helped me out a little bit uumm thanks for saying hi ursus

[roman wargamer]

There are enough utterances in John's Gospel to dispel your second last notion.

 

St Athanasius' adage, that a man nor an angel could have saved man, only God. Theodosius

 

here is my reply, rw

"...Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body." Ephesians 5:23

 

Jesus Christ is a man havin flesh and bone.

"Behold my hand and feet,that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see,for a spirit does not have flesh and bone." Lk 24:39

 

Jesus Christ himself said he is a man.

"But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the trurth which I heared from God..." Jn 8:40

__________________________________

 

The same occured with the Holy Spirit, where you have the pneumatomachoi (πνευματομάχοι )

and through this heresy, St Basil and then St Gregory expounded the Third Person.

Origen's use of homoousion (ὁμοούσιον) allowed for its adoption in Nicea. Theodosius

 

 

"For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person."

The Catholic Encyclopedia. vol. 15, New york, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913

 

"The Nicene Creed had said nothing about the deity of the Holy Spirit."

Kuiper, B.K., The Church in History, USA, CSI Publication, 1984

 

"Origen went even farther in this direction by teaching explicitly that the Son is subordinate to

the Father in respect to essence, and the Holy Spirit is subordinate even to the Son."

Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977

 

It was only in 381, at the Council of Constantinople, the Holy Spirit become god, by virtue of council.

 

That the way in which Christian ( catholic) dogma has been developed, Theodosius

 

But the doctrine of the Trinity Gods, can never be read or found in the Holy Bible. It is manmade.

[idahojeri]

My family and I were discussing varius thing the other night when we came apon the topic of religion and I had once heard that roman catholics were one of the oldest religions when it came to christianity, now my problem is when did the romans start believing or (start the religion). if some one could give me some insight on this stuff ( i am confused on the whole matter)

sincerly

brotus maximus

A.K.A

kris

 

 

 

The first time anyone mentioned the Catholic church was in 110 Ad. Ignatius of Antioch (in his epistles) wrote: "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congrregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church".

 

Blessings, Jeri

Edited June 26, 2006 by idahojeri

[Kosmo]

Catholic means universal.

The oldest oficial church it's that of Armenia.

Ortodox kept more of the original church while catholics were and are innovating things.

Beside the supremacy of the pope there are other important practical differences between orthodox and catholic churches.

The orthodox monks are not in religious orders, and ortodox priests are forced to be married. Catholics don't pray to icons and believe in purgatory.

There are some churches called greco-catolic that are under the authority of the pope but keep most aspects of ortodoxy.

This were created and fought by political reasons.

For example most of Belarus was greco-catholic of bielorusian language while part of Lithuania in the Polish Union, but in the 1830's the russian tzars destroyed that church and forced them to russian ortodoxy.

This attitude was continued by comunists so in 1948 in Romania the greco catholic church was forbidden until 1989.

Ortodoxy it's not united like catholicism.In modern times each nation has her independent church led by a patriarch and a sinod.

Always has been some difference between greeks and slavonic orthodox despite some medieval unity.

[Rameses the Great]

Catholic means universal.

The oldest oficial church it's that of Armenia.

Ortodox kept more of the original church while catholics were and are innovating things.

Beside the supremacy of the pope there are other important practical differences between orthodox and catholic churches.

The orthodox monks are not in religious orders, and ortodox priests are forced to be married. Catholics don't pray to icons and believe in purgatory.

There are some churches called greco-catolic that are under the authority of the pope but keep most aspects of ortodoxy.

This were created and fought by political reasons.

For example most of Belarus was greco-catholic of bielorusian language while part of Lithuania in the Polish Union, but in the 1830's the russian tzars destroyed that church and forced them to russian ortodoxy.

This attitude was continued by comunists so in 1948 in Romania the greco catholic church was forbidden until 1989.

Ortodoxy it's not united like catholicism.In modern times each nation has her independent church led by a patriarch and a sinod.

Always has been some difference between greeks and slavonic orthodox despite some medieval unity.

 

Great job Kosmo. Catholic means universal, and Orthodox means straight line in Greek. The Catholics do the sign of the cross from top-bottom-right-left. The Orthodox do it top-bottom-left-right. The Orthodox church is extremely Conservative and never change their ways. The Catholics are more seceptible to change.

 

There is two types of Orthodox: Oriental and Eastern. The Eastern are: Byzantium, Greek, Slavic, and Russian. Those are the main ones. For Oriental it is: Syrian, Antiochian, Armenian, and Coptic. The Easterners exiled a man by the name of Neasterios. He sought refuge in Egypt, and the Greeks thought we were listening to his beliefs. This was not true and it created a split in the church. For political reasons, no difference in religion. (Hence that is why the Byzantiums refused to help Egypt during Muslim invasion.)

 

I'll tell you one thing though, I have been to a Salvic church and I see a direct correlation with the Oriental church. For example they still celebrate Christmas on January 7.

 

Kosmo what do you mean by the oldest official church is Armenia? I thought the Alexandrian church was.

[Kosmo]

The first state to accept as offical religion christianity was Armenia.

 

What where you doing in Egipt in the late Empire ?

 

It's more complicated then that. The Eastern Empire had 4 patriarchs while the west had 1.

Between Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Byzantion was always some competition.

As christianty had a much wider base in the East that was a ground for heresy and conflict.

Another factor was the rise of christianity in coptic and aramaic languages. This was combined in the east with greek and latin while the West had only latin (and later german for arians?)

Aramaic literature was very important and some say that evan one of the gospels was written in aramaic.

What it's called the greek byzantine church should be reffered only after Heraclius when the other patriarchs of the East were under muslim rule.