The church in Rome

[HTacianas]

Yet if church Jesus was talking about was Orthodox Church then they would never fail to be teaching truth but much of them spoke heresy and times they are not speaking the truth but false so people have followed wrong way and there are times no one has been teaching truth who are available for those who are seeking to even know right way. For Jesus said He would build church on faith in Him and that is what He taught as He said he who builds his house on the rock will stand. Church adds tradition to say at times to not welcome heretics using St John letter to heretics but he meant to greet as though to approve of their way as acceptable to share in their sin and many other similar things and so have not loved their enemy and renaming that way not repenting have been condemned.

Why don't you tell us just where the Orthodox Church went wrong, and what the Orthodox Church teaches that is false.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Some entertain the idea that the Catholic Church centred in Rome arose in the 4th century or later, but I think that the New Testament testified to a much earlier start. Saint Paul wrote a letter To The Romans which is the longest of his letters to the churches of his time.

It is thought by many scholars that saint Paul wrote to the Romans sometime around the time he was in Corinth on one of his missionary journeys. That places it around the middle 50s AD. And, of course, saint Paul would not be writing to Rome's Christians if they were not already a church with a reputation, which he mentions in chapter one of his letter. So, the best guess for the establishment of the church in Rome would be shortly after the sermon in Acts chapter two. Or around the mid or later 30s AD.

Saint Paul wrote, "And first, I offer thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, you whose faith is so renowned throughout the world." Romans 1:8.

So, having set the record straight, we can move on from theories that claim that the Church of/in Rome was created centuries after Christ's earthly sojourn.

Paul also wrote to
the Church in Corinth
the Church in Emphasis
the Church of Galatia
the Church at Philippi
the church at Colossi
the church at Antioch

of course the oldest was the church in Jerusalem See Acts multiple references

Then there is Revelation:
the church at Ephesus,
the church at Smyrna,
the church at Pergamos,
the church at Thyatira,
the church at Sardis,
the church at Philadelphia,
the church at Laodicea.”

All were functioning and in existence in the first Century

The churches were a network first centered in Jerusalem, then Constantinople and when the Romans decriminalized Christianity the began as a centralized Roman Catholic Church. That is historical fact.

Not a theory -

 

[mikeforjesus]

The bible commands to avoid those who seek only arguments and strife and divisions but can answer to be patient with all long suffering but not to do such as wastes time and is not profitable to seek to introduce distractions and false knowledge. I will only answer once to say the Orthodox Church was never founded by Christ at all though Christ could allow men to form groups so there is no room for too many to claim to be only true church but others would know it is not true because scripture teaches otherwise or they were just divisive men that wanted positions.

For Christ said call only Him as teacher and call no one Father though Paul was only in that he introduced gospel though he wasn’t father God was in the sense that one must be under one authority no matter what they say for Christ only is that teacher to show truth and as John says you have no need that anyone teaches you so not needing interpretations of men afterwards the counsel of men to seek to guide the church into all truth as He gave Holy Spirit to guide into all truth and the church is pillar and ground of truth because we all have Holy Spirit to be able to understand and teach scripture.

Many church people take advantage of people feeling of discouragement for what they saying being rejected to attack people to lower their confidence in their arguments just because they want to hold to their tradition from fear even though it is not right or they are jealous and proud and wanting power over others to put down others who believe right. Though your beliefs are unsound and unjust teaching teenagers who were never baptised in Orthodox Church are not saved even if other Christian’s convinced them otherwise and they couldn’t see truth you still wish to defend it maybe using current teachers but is not teaching of church fathers.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The churches were a network first centered in Jerusalem, then Constantinople and when the Romans decriminalized Christianity the began as a centralized Roman Catholic Church. That is historical fact.

Almost none of that is a fact, it's an unsubstantiated claim.

The truth is that long before Constantine's time - still in the first century and also in the second century - Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were apostolic sees whose bishops were counted as patriarchs of the Church.

Patriarchate (Ancient Greek: πατριαρχεῖον, patriarcheîon) is an ecclesiological term in Christianity, designating the office and jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical patriarch. According to Christian tradition three patriarchates were established by the apostles as apostolic sees in the 1st century: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (recognized by the Council of Nicaea).[1] Constantinople was added in the 4th century and Jerusalem in the 5th century. Eventually, together, these five were recognised as the pentarchy by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. [Wikipedia]​

Constantinople was not established as a city nor as an apostolic see and patriarchate until after the time of Constantine had begun; the city is named after him, it was named Byzantium before.

 

[RileyG]

Like I said, I prefer to stick with the scriptures! I have seen history be re-written too many times, which is why we are told to follow God's Word, this is where we can place our trust.

I love Scripture too and read/study it daily, but I do not accept Sola Scriptura. See 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

God bless

 

[Always in His Presence]

Constantinople was not established as a city nor as an apostolic see and patriarchate until after the time of Constantine had begun; the city is named after him, it was named Byzantium befo

During the approximate fifty-year period between the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synod (325-381 AD), Constantinople evolves into a leading Church. This can be attested by the leading roles of the Bishops of Constantinople during the heresies concerning the Holy Trinity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

325-381 AD

That is the 4th century AD.

Rome was established and counted as an Apostolic see in the first century AD.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That is the 4th century AD.

Rome was established and counted as an Apostolic see in the first century AD.

Incorrect. The Church at Rome was under the leadership of the Church In Jerusalem in the first century, then Constantinople and in the 4th Century when Christianity was no longer a death sentence in Rome it took on form and function as the Roman Catholic Church.

As part of their formation they chose their canon of 73 books and hierarchy structure.

Question: Who was the first person to be called Pope by title by his contemporaries?

It wasn’t Peter, no contemporary in the first century ever used the title.

Second: when was the canonization resulting in 66 books and the removal of the Apocryphal books?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Incorrect. The Church at Rome was under the leadership of the Church In Jerusalem in the first century, then Constantinople and in the 4th Century when Christianity was no longer a death sentence in Rome it took on form and function as the Roman Catholic Church.

In the first century there was no Constantinople, nor was Jerusalem counted as an apostolic see and Rome was an apostolic see in the first century. Your stated claims are fictions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Paul also wrote to
the Church in Corinth
the Church in Emphasis
the Church of Galatia
the Church at Philippi
the church at Colossi
the church at Antioch

of course the oldest was the church in Jerusalem See Acts multiple references

Then there is Revelation:
the church at Ephesus,
the church at Smyrna,
the church at Pergamos,
the church at Thyatira,
the church at Sardis,
the church at Philadelphia,
the church at Laodicea.”

All were functioning and in existence in the first Century

The churches were a network first centered in Jerusalem, then Constantinople and when the Romans decriminalized Christianity the began as a centralized Roman Catholic Church. That is historical fact.

Not a theory -

Umm … a theory. A wrong one too.

The Church was first centered in Jerusalem. That’s right. Then not Constantinople, which didn’t exist yet by that name until Constantine, but Antioch, when Peter went there. Then to Rome where Peter and Paul went there, way before Christianity was decriminalized. Mid -first century. Christians were executed in Rome up to the time of Diocletian, used as impromptu streetlights or simply crucified until the Edict of Milan.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The bible commands to avoid those who seek only arguments and strife and divisions but can answer to be patient with all long suffering but not to do such as wastes time and is not profitable to seek to introduce distractions and false knowledge. I will only answer once to say the Orthodox Church was never founded by Christ at all though Christ could allow men to form groups so there is no room for too many to claim to be only true church but others would know it is not true because scripture teaches otherwise or they were just divisive men that wanted positions.

For Christ said call only Him as teacher and call no one Father though Paul was only in that he introduced gospel though he wasn’t father God was in the sense that one must be under one authority no matter what they say for Christ only is that teacher to show truth and as John says you have no need that anyone teaches you so not needing interpretations of men afterwards the counsel of men to seek to guide the church into all truth as He gave Holy Spirit to guide into all truth and the church is pillar and ground of truth because we all have Holy Spirit to be able to understand and teach scripture.

Many church people take advantage of people feeling of discouragement for what they saying being rejected to attack people to lower their confidence in their arguments just because they want to hold to their tradition from fear even though it is not right or they are jealous and proud and wanting power over others to put down others who believe right. Though your beliefs are unsound and unjust teaching teenagers who were never baptised in Orthodox Church are not saved even if other Christian’s convinced them otherwise and they couldn’t see truth you still wish to defend it maybe using current teachers but is not teaching of church fathers.

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have a common origin and we would rightly refer to the schism between us because we both have our origins in Jesus Christ. That is why we Catholics can and do accept all Orthodox sacraments as valid. We do not refer to the Orthodox as some newly created religion but as a temporarily separated part of the One Church. We do this if reciprocated or not reciprocated because it is true. We are eager for the schism to be resolved and in the meantime we accept their sacraments and the bulk of their teaching.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't even understand why anyone would argue about this. Rome is indisputably an apostolic see. The arguments you see among Catholics and Orthodox are about what follows from that (e.g., if Rome has 'universal jurisdiction', if Rome is 'infallible' in certain situations, etc.), not about the underlying basic fact that we all agree on.

 

[tampasteve]

I don't even understand why anyone would argue about this. Rome is indisputably an apostolic see. The arguments you see among Catholics and Orthodox are about what follows from that (e.g., if Rome has 'universal jurisdiction', if Rome is 'infallible' in certain situations, etc.), not about the underlying basic fact that we all agree on.

^^^This.

Rome is an apostolic see. Fine, I have no issues there. The Bishop of Rome was a leader in the early church, I have no issues with that. What is usually disagreed about is what follows, not that it was not around in the 1st century. The church was "centered in Rome" at one point, sure. I don't know what that would really be contentious.

 

[Always in His Presence]

In the first century there was no Constantinople, nor was Jerusalem counted as an apostolic see and Rome was an apostolic see in the first century. Your stated claimed are fictions.

That is not accurate - sorry you disagree.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is not accurate - sorry you disagree.

Try looking for "Constantinople" on the maps in the back of your bible.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Umm … a theory. A wrong one too.

The Church was first centered in Jerusalem. That’s right. Then not Constantinople, which didn’t exist yet by that name until Constantine, but Antioch, when Peter went there. Then to Rome where Peter and Paul went there, way before Christianity was decriminalized. Mid -first century. Christians were executed in Rome up to the time of Diocletian, used as impromptu streetlights or simply crucified until the Edict of Milan.

I think your misunderstanding comes from thinking I am referring only to first century. The church in Rome is one of 15 churches mentioned in scripture. There is no support for it being anything other than a church until the Fourth Century.

In A.D. 330, Constantinople became the site of Roman Emperor Constantine’s “New Rome,” a Christian city the center of this new found religion. Within 50 some years the seat of the church started in Rome, Italy being given the Vatican city as their own.​

It was ONLY then that such terms as "Apostolic See" "Papacy" etc. were even used in writings. Tradition then "back dated" the offices to times to fit their narrative.

Martin Luther, who is held in high esteem by some for his writings on Mary also called the Pope the Antichrist.

I believe this is why in all this there has not been one quote from before 350AD supporting any of the traditions that were embraced afterwards.

They don't exist. -

I'll ask again: The Roman Catholic Church canonized 73 books - who canonized the 66 books accepted as Holy Scripture today? It wasn't the Roman Catholics - who was it, when and why?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Try looking for "Constantinople" on the maps in the back of your bible.

It's right next to the map of Rome.

 

[chevyontheriver]

^^^This.

Rome is an apostolic see. Fine, I have no issues there. The Bishop of Rome was a leader in the early church, I have no issues with that. What is usually disagreed about is what follows, not that it was not around in the 1st century. The church was "centered in Rome" at one point, sure. I don't know what that would really be contentious.

It SHOULDN'T be. It's fairly established historical fact. What separates the see of Rome from the other Patriarchal sees is hundreds of years later with a strong contemporary political element to it as well. Nothing about the first centuries.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'll ask again: The Roman Catholic Church canonized 73 books - who canonized the 66 books accepted as Holy Scripture today? It wasn't the Roman Catholics - who was it, when and why?

Well it wasn't the Orthodox who picked such a truncated canon. They knew better.

So please tell us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It SHOULDN'T be. It's fairly established historical fact. What separates the see of Rome from the other Patriarchal sees is hundreds of years later with a strong contemporary political element to it as well. Nothing about the first centuries.

Many things in apostolic tradition take time to develop; papal jurisdiction is one of them, and so is papal infallibility on Ex cathedra matters.