The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[Thursday]

What I could never figure out was if peter was in Rome the same time paul was in prison in Rome how come in the letters of paul he never mentioned it?
Plus is there any proof that Peter was ever in Rome?

Yes, there is ample proof that Peter was in Rome.

No one in the early Church doubted this.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

 

[Thursday]

Orthodox church of Jerusalem has an apostolic line and it was founded before the church in Rome was.

But it is in schism with the Catholic Church.

What happened between these quotes and today?

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy. (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893)

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645)

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.

The Council of Ephesus (431):

....a council presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria, in which the Roman presbyter Philip declared:

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins; who down even to this day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Isn't "Quis est Veritas" brilliant, he wants to let the board know how intelligent he is, especially in Latin, probably Greek, French, Italian, Spanish, Farsi etc….————
A simple correction in the declension would have been sufficient. Oh well,

A simple correction in declension would not have been sufficient as you claimed Peter did not mean rock in Latin, which is an error.
I had no intention to parade my knowledge as you are implying, just correcting your misapprehension regarding Peter and Latin and supporting it with examples.

This is an insult sir.

 

[rakovsky]

But it is in schism with the Catholic Church.

What happened between these quotes and today?

In 1054 or so the Roman pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, thereby creating the schism we've had for the last 1000 years. You would have to go back and check what justifications he made for that action.

None of the verses you quoted said that the papacy was permanently infallible, and indeed even the RC church admits that there have been heretic popes. Even in the 19th c. One Pope said that papal infallibility was a wrong doctrine. So to answer your question above, between the quotes you gave and now, the Pope took the action of schismating from the rest of the church leaders or Patriarchs. And then there was the sacking of Constantinople by the RC crusaders.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the Eastern Church is older.

 

[Thursday]

In 1054 or so the Roman pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, thereby creating the schism we've had for the last 1000 years. You would have to go back and check what justifications he made for that action.

None of the verses you quoted said that the papacy was permanently infallible, and indeed even the RC church admits that there have been heretic popes. Even in the 19th c. One Pope said that papal infallibility was a wrong doctrine. So to answer your question above, between the quotes you gave and now, the Pope took the action of schismating from the rest of the church leaders or Patriarchs. And then there was the sacking of Constantinople by the RC crusaders.

Anyway, to answer the OP, the Eastern Church is older.

The Eastern Church is not older. Eastern Catholics are older than Western Catholics. The Orthodox are a new Church that split from the Catholic Church.

You can see from the historical quotes that Eastern Catholics believed the same about the pope as Western Catholics.

The change came when political considerations drove some in the East to seek independence from the Catholic Church and to reject the historical connection to the successor of Peter.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well, aren't you cute? That "Catholic" church cited above is the Orthodox Church, of course, not the errant schism that went its own way under Rome. Note that when ALL of the above were written, Rome was still in Communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. However, by the 11th century, Rome had begun to fall into pride and error. The Schism occurred, and Rome has been outside the actual Catholic church ever since, although She is welcome to return.

The Orthodox Church? Since when has the See of Rome been part of EO? The whole point of this post is that Corinth was not part of the bishopric of Rome, yet Pope Clement had jurisdiction, showing that he had primacy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Eastern Church is not older. Eastern Catholics are older than Western Catholics. The Orthodox are a new Church that split from the Catholic Church.

You can see from the historical quotes that Eastern Catholics believed the same about the pope as Western Catholics.

The change came when political considerations drove some in the East to seek independence from the Catholic Church and to reject the historical connection to the successor of Peter.

Conversely, the Roman Church split from the Catholic Church when the bishop of Rome overstepped his episcopal authority, claiming that the very Creed of the Church could be altered without approval by the Catholic Church through the convening of a universal council; and in so doing introduced a foreign element to the Creed originally introduced by the Franks and so the Roman bishop sought to align with Frankish powers against the rest of the Church. And then sent a bull of excommunication, again overstepping his authority, to the Patriarch of Constantinople. And instead of healing this breach, later Roman bishops would attempt to consolidate their rogue power, and convene false universal councils, which killed any hope for reconciliation with the rest of the Church. And so the Roman patriarch, who at one time enjoyed the honor of primus inter pares became a rogue agent, a renegade and a rebel against the holy catholic Church; and until such a time that the successor of St. Peter in Rome recants of their rebellious error, there can be no reconciliation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Thursday]

Conversely, the Roman Church split from the Catholic Church when the bishop of Rome overstepped his episcopal authority, claiming that the very Creed of the Church could be altered without approval by the Catholic Church through the convening of a universal council;

The Roman Bishop, as the successor of Peter, is the central point of unity for the Church. It is impossible for him to split from the Catholic Church.

We can read this view in history from both eastern and western bishops in the early Church.

The Orthodox left the Church for political reasons. The claim that the role of the pope was a central factor doesn't conform to the historical evidence.

How can the Orthodox Church be the Church Jesus started when it doesn't contain the successor of Peter?

 

[tickingclocker]

You are missing the point.

There is one truth. The Holy Spirit does not teach any false doctrines. Two Churches teaching contradictory doctrines indicate that one or both are not the Church founded by Jesus.

No, the Holy Spirit never teaches any false doctrines. That is not the issue either. The issue is, cultural practices interpreted through God's Word. Do you think God meant for everyone to interpret His Word through a standard filter, when HE is the Creator of our cultural filters in the first place? Is it that threatening to you, seeing your brothers and sisters varying from "your" cultural filter--while still worshiping the same God and claiming the same Savior and Lord in Jesus Christ? Or do you think we should view all things through a "Jewish" cultural filter as being "God's filter", and ignore the culture God has placed us in? Better cover that hair at all times if female, or stop shaving if male, then. But God is not a Jew.

Tell me, who has all of God's truth down here? Nobody, and therefore no one church can either. Do you think God didn't allow for that reality? Just because others practice something NOT essential to salvation, doesn't mean it becomes a church "not founded by Jesus". Believers are still sinners, are they not? Doesn't mean just because they hold a slightly different point from everyone else's various practices that they should be counted among the lost. Some sprinkle for baptism, others immerse. Which is wrong--to God, when its the inner spiritual HEART being vicariously washed clean and not the body? The majority of Christian churches practice baptism. Isn't that enough for you? If it is for God, then your arguments should evaporate via respect. HE is the ultimate judge of the believer, not you.


Speak and act as those who will be judged by a law that gives freedom. For judgment is merciless for the one who has shown no mercy. But mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:12, 13)

 

[rakovsky]

The Eastern Church is not older. Eastern Catholics are older than Western Catholics. The Orthodox are a new Church that split from the Catholic Church.

Actually if you study history you will learn that the Eastern Catholics are new churches that split from the orthodox a few centuries after the schism. The Ukrainian catholic church formed in the 16th century after a special agreement with the pope after the Poles conquered them.

 

[Thursday]

No, the Holy Spirit never teaches any false doctrines. That is not the issue either. The issue is, cultural practices interpreted through God's Word. Do you think God meant for everyone to interpret His Word through a standard filter

Yes, Jesus made this quite clear:

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Thursday]

Actually if you study history you will learn that the Eastern Catholics are new churches that split from the orthodox a few centuries after the schism. The Ukrainian catholic church formed in the 16th century after a special agreement with the pope after the Poles conquered them.

That's true in many cases, but not relevant to my point.

 

[tickingclocker]

I love my Catholic brothers and sisters. It was through them that the Lord bestowed the honor of giving the world His Word. That was His choice. It wasn't even theirs! If they believe they are the original church, let them! If they are not, it is up to God to deal with their pride. Not us, because we are not divine and never will be. Does believing it take anything away from salvation? No. Do they demand we all become Catholic? No. Somebody's got to be the early church, right?

So why is the beef really a veggie burger?

 

[Thursday]

I love my Catholic brothers and sisters. It was through them that the Lord bestowed the honor of giving the world His Word. That was His choice. It wasn't even theirs! If they believe they are the original church, let them! If they are not, it is up to God to deal with their pride. Not us, because we are not divine and never will be. Does believing it take anything away from salvation? No. Do they demand we all become Catholic? No. Somebody's got to be the early church, right?

So why is the beef really a veggie burger?

Jesus wants us to be one as He and the Father are one.

Do you think He and the Father disagree on any matters of our faith?

 

[tickingclocker]

Yes, Jesus made this quite clear:

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Luke 10:16
"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Twisting scripture to prove slanted human-based points is disrespectful to God. God allows for cultural filters. You can deny its existence by trying to outshout that fact by abusing an endless ream of scriptures until you are hoarse. It will not change. If God did not love variety, He wouldn't have created so much of it---EVERYWHERE! I am sorry you are so frightened of it. God is not.

 

[tickingclocker]

Jesus wants us to be one as He and the Father are one.

Do you think He and the Father disagree on any matters of our faith?

We certainly are one---in the Spirit, united in proclaiming that "Jesus is Lord!" Is God so small He only has one single facet to His Being to you? I don't think so, and I don't think you really believe He is so small either. We both understand that God is not a one-dimensional Being.

 

[rakovsky]

The Roman Bishop, as the successor of Peter, is the central point of unity for the Church. It is impossible for him to split from the Catholic Church.

How can the Orthodox Church be the Church Jesus started when it doesn't contain the successor of Peter?

The answer is that the Catholic Church teaches that some popes have been heretics and excommunicated, thereby in its teaching, the Catholic Church has not at times had Peters successor.

 

[tickingclocker]

The answer is that the Catholic Church teaches that some popes have been heretics and excommunicated, thereby in its teaching, the Catholic Church has not at times had Peters successor.

And that somehow eliminates their claim of the church being the early church?

 

[Thursday]

Twisting scripture to prove slanted human-based points is disrespectful to God. God allows for cultural filters. You can deny its existence by trying to outshout that fact by abusing an endless ream of scriptures until you are hoarse. It will not change. If God did not love variety, He wouldn't have created so much of it---EVERYWHERE! I am sorry you are so frightened of it. God is not.

What is twisted?

Jesus started a single Church and gave it his authority to teach, forgive sins, and make rules.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Roman Bishop, as the successor of Peter, is the central point of unity for the Church. It is impossible for him to split from the Catholic Church.

That's certainly the Roman Catholic position, yes.

We can read this view in history from both eastern and western bishops in the early Church.

I'd be interested to see that. Unfortunately what you've provided thus far in this thread doesn't support this point. With the sole exception of Justinian--who unfortunately isn't one of the ancient fathers or bishops of the Church. Credit where credit is due though, it is the only thing you quoted that actually could be used to support your position.

How can the Orthodox Church be the Church Jesus started when it doesn't contain the successor of Peter?

But it does. Just because you don't like it doesn't change the fact that the Patriarch of Antioch sits in the chair of St. Peter.

-CryptoLutheran