What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The First?

lovely

lovely

Member
I spoke to an Orthodox not long ago, and he told me that Orthodox are the first church, and the only true church. He told me that those who are Catholic are part of a schism, and because of this break off from the One true church, that they (those who are Catholic) have been instrumental in causing the protestant movement...leading protestants to become heretics. I am wondering if you have ever heard this before, and how you respond to it? The Lord bless you.
 
Your friend may have his history mixed up. The main schism that occured was between Constantinople and Rome. The Constantinople church, and also the eastern Roman empire area became orthodox, while the Western church remained the Catholic church. Essentially, it was a conflict over primacy between Constantinople and Alexandria as to who would be second to Rome. Well, thats how it started, but not how it ended. Writers such as Ignatius of Antioch (early second century) and Origen actually mention the name "Catholic" church. Thats the short version.
 
lovely said:
I spoke to an Orthodox not long ago, and he told me that Orthodox are the first church, and the only true church. He told me that those who are Catholic are part of a schism, and because of this break off from the One true church, that they (those who are Catholic) have been instrumental in causing the protestant movement...leading protestants to become heretics. I am wondering if you have ever heard this before, and how you respond to it? The Lord bless you.
Click to expand...

The short answer is this:

In the beginning there was one Church. It was made up of 'smaller' Churches which were particular to the indiividual regions and cultures of the area. This was called the "Catholic Church" as early as the 1st Century.

In the 5th Century, the North African part of that Church became separated from the rest. This became what is known as the "Coptic Church". With the creation of Islam centuries later, North Africa was overrun by Islam and the Coptics nearly wiped out.

In the 9th Century, the remaining 'east' and 'west' part of the Church were fighting. There were a lot of issues between the two, mostly political. By the 11th Century, ex-communications were given to each other and they were separated. The western part is what is now called the "Catholic Church" and the eastern is called the "Orthodox church". The eastern side of the church (Orthodox) were soon overrun and nearly wiped out by Muslims and then heavily damaged by communism last century.

Catholics believe they are the legitimate and true remaining Church from the split. Orthodox believe they are the legitimate and remaining church from the split. Coptics believe they are the true church as well.

Protestantism is when men came up with new doctrines during the 16h Century, which enabled European states to be independent of the Catholic Church.
 
The deciding factor in all of this for me is the Eastern Bishops in the early Church who the Orthdox recognize, who look to Rome as the final authority on matters in question. Also the great evidence in scripture that Peter was the cheif apostle. Not just Matt 16:18 but also many other passages in which Peter is listed first among the apostles even though Andrew was chosen first by Christ, ditto Peter being called first in Matt 10. Peter is named far more than any other Apostle (190 times). Peter is the only one to walk on water as Christ did and Peter's cures are reflective of Christs. Peter ALWAYS speaks for the group when a question is asked of the group, etc. etc. I can go more in to it if you like. Biblically I would really like to see how the Orthodox justify the 4 Primates?

Blessings
 
Just a quicky... It was metioned that the name Catholic was used as early as the second century, which is true. The word catholic translates to mean, "worldwide" or "universal".
 
vic said:
Just a quicky... It was metioned that the name Catholic was used as early as the second century, which is true. The word catholic translates to mean, "worldwide" or "universal".
Click to expand...

It was used as early as the first actually- because the Church was worldwide and universal. The NT testament talks about different Churches, governed by different bishops. While there were regional churches, they were all in communion with each other and the term "Catholic Church" used to describe them all. Thus, by Nicene, they professed a belief in the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"- a unified, universal Church with an apostolic hierarchy.

During the Reformation the original concept of a universal Church with a definate hierarchy was replaced with a concept of a universal Church simply made up of all believers.
 
Catholic began to be taken on as the name of Christ's Church because the term "Christian" became very watered down. Arians, Donatists, modalists, etc., etc., claimed it just as everyone does today. The teachings of Christ became secondary and the name was worn as a "badge" of salvation. This is noted in Augustine's writings and others.
 
lovely,

From what I have studied, your Orthodox friend is talking about what happened in I believe 1054. It's when the east and west divided.
It's been awhile since I've studid it, but here is a good article.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/artic ... le7064.asp

Here are a few of sites that I enjoy visiting.
http://www.goarch.org/
http://www.synaxis.org/sschool/Orthodox_Church

This is a good site to learn about the Coptic's. What impresses me is how they are so non violent yet they have remained...
http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Here is a site that shows the differences between the east and the west. I'd like to mention that even though the two churches are divided in a few area's, they appear to remain unitied in Christ as a whole.
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

What your friend says about the Protestants coming from the RCC is true as seen by Martin Luther and Calvin. (Odd how they derived so much from St. Augustine when the church was a united body [east and west]).

It appears to me that the "Orthodox" have thier divisions as well as seen in the Coptics, Syrbians and the Russian Orthodox church, but as a whole, they are a pretty tight knit group with slight differences that don't amount to much.

From what I've noticed, it appears to me that what keeps the Orthodox and RCC together is the creed and a great focus on Grace toward one another in hopes that one day they will unite as one once more.
 
Dear Friends,

Actually, the first church was simply believers who would meet in homes.
Read the book of Acts. This has continued today. As the gospel was spread outside of Jerusalem to the gentiles...temple worship became less yet it was still among the Jewish people. Gentiles kept it simple. 8-) But today, in many churches, it has become legalistic with images and forms of idolatry in some cases.
 
Once again justifed, this is not a debate forum. If you have a question or comment about the reality of Catholicism (no straw men or anti-catholicism please) then make such comment or question. Other topics may be handled elsewhere on the board. Thank you.

Thess
 
thessalonian said:
Once again justifed, this is not a debate forum. If you have a question or comment about the reality of Catholicism (no straw men or anti-catholicism please) then make such comment or question. Other topics may be handled elsewhere on the board. Thank you.

Thess
Click to expand...

Dear thessalonian,

I will honor your request. :)

God Bless You
 
Jeff thanks for those sites. I agree that even though he speaks so strongly about the Catholics being at fault about the schism, there still seems to be a sense that there is a brotherhood between them...and it consists of more than just the good soccer match. :) I think he believes that the Catholics need to repent, though I admit there are probably other Orthodox that aren't quite as consevative in their view. I will always be a heretic, however, because I am not either one, even though THAT seems to be the fault of the Catholics too by his take on things. :o He and I have talked about the Old Believers too...one of your sites mentions them. They almost seem to have method of holy living elements that remind me if the Mennonites, Quakers, and Amish...though Orthodox in tone...almost Jewish in nature.

I do not know many Orthodox at all, and have nothing to compare his views to really...the web links were good for that purpose. I do not know on a personal basis many Catholics who seem to understand, or practice, the religion that they are part of, honestly. I do have a brother in my church that was devoutly Catholic for a long time, and though he is protestant now, he draws a great deal from his teachings in the Catholic church that seemed to be more systematic in nature. The great church history that he is so familiar with, having been educated by Catholics his entire life...through college, that is..., is also something that seems to help him have a good back ground for the purpose of studying the Word.

Thess,

I know you warned Justice, but could you respond to this part of his post?

Justified wrote:
Actually, the first church was simply believers who would meet in homes.
Read the book of Acts. This has continued today. As the gospel was spread outside of Jerusalem to the gentiles
Click to expand...

The reason I ask, is because there was a Jerusalem Council, and a decree concerning circumcision, right? How do you view the original set up, and to you think it is at odds with established churches now in the protestant realm, and do you think it is at odds with the Catholic church in it's present form...and if your answers are different for each, could you explain?

Thanks, the Lord bless you.
 
Thess,

I know you warned Justice, but could you respond to this part of his post?

Justified wrote:
Quote:
Actually, the first church was simply believers who would meet in homes.
Read the book of Acts. This has continued today. As the gospel was spread outside of Jerusalem to the gentiles


The reason I ask, is because there was a Jerusalem Council, and a decree concerning circumcision, right? How do you view the original set up, and to you think it is at odds with established churches now in the protestant realm, and do you think it is at odds with the Catholic church in it's present form...and if your answers are different for each, could you explain?

Thanks, the Lord bless you.
Click to expand...

The warning was not because he had a question. He did not. The warning was because he was stating things in debate style. I do not mind at all the way you have asked your question.


Well first of all his way he uses the Bible as evidence of everything that should be as it should be in the Church is very difficult to maintain. I won't get more in to that as those circles have been gone round and round with Henry and others who have tried to promote the house Church movement. I will say there is no problem with meeting in a home in Catholicism. The Eucharist is not normally celebrated there but it can be. Acts 20 however in my view quite clearly shows that meeting in homes is not the ONLY way that it could have been done. The home meetings in the early Church are quite to be expected after the Christians were kicked out of the synagouge. First starting out they would not immediately have a building to meet in. Further they were in a time of great persecution and so Churches would likely have been quickly destroyed. Its not like they had insurance and could rebuild in a few months. I don't see the bible as pro-house vs. pro-churches and congregatoins at all.

The COUNCIl in Acts 10 fits very well with how the Catholic Church operates. It is more an example of the 20 ecumenical councils (the first 7 which the Orthodox accept, oddly enough councils stopped for them), than of the papacy, though Peters role in the first Ecumenical Council in Acts 15 has some points with regard to that role. That council sent out word to be adhered to just as our councils today do. I think it would have been quite difficult for such a council to occur in which leaders from the whole Church throughout the world came together and reached an agreement on the matters at hand. Further I don't see how such a concil was possible in multi-denominationalism of current day protestantism. I think this is problematic. The Baptists will get together for there convention and so do the Lutherans, presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. Most definitely the unity of Acts 15 is not seen in Protestantism and the world gathering of Bishops is not possible in the Protestant system. Thanks for the respectful questions. :)

Blessings
 
I know you warned Justice, but could you respond to this part of his post?
Click to expand...
I just want to clarify that there was no warnning given to Justice. This reminder was given to JustifiedByFaith. 8-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top