What was the first Christain denomination around ?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My perspective...

The Catholic Church is not a denomination though.

I respectfully disagree.
The Catholic denomination is the strongest example of a denomination known to me.


Denomination:
A formal association of congregations under a common name, usually with a commonly embraced statement of faith, system of accountability and authority, and formal aspects of cooperation.
It's in contrast to a non-denominational congregation which is completely and absolutely autonomous, having no formal relationship, cooperation or assoication with any other parish and being accountable only to itself.


I was a part of a Catholic congregation for nearly 5 years. To argue that this parish considered itself completely and absolutely autonomous is, well, silly. The sign outside said "Catholic," the Catechism said "Catholic" on it, the parish certainly was UNDER an authority OUTSIDE of it - the bishop, archbishop, the Magisterium and the Pope. I saw a high level of cooperation between parishes. Even the selection of our priests were largely an issue OUTSIDE and above us. I've never in my life seen a church that is MORE denominational in nature than is the RCC.


Back to the topic...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Incorrect.

The first Christians were those repented converted to Christianity during Jesus' ministry 33 A.D. on earth.

And that was the beginning of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.



.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Actually the first church was the earliest First Christian Church.

Between 33 A.D and before Nicaea 325 A.D.

And this was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church both before and after the Council of Nicea . . ..



.

 

[Knowledge3]

And this was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church both before and after the Council of Nicea . . ..



.

Not to mention the fact that the Lord Jesus Himself ordained St. James the Just as the first Bishop of the Antiochian Church in Jerusalem.

 

[Knowledge3]

My perspective...






I respectfully disagree.
The Catholic denomination is the strongest example of a denomination known to me.


Denomination:
A formal association of congregations under a common name, usually with a commonly embraced statement of faith, system of accountability and authority, and formal aspects of cooperation.
It's in contrast to a non-denominational congregation which is completely and absolutely autonomous, having no formal relationship, cooperation or assoication with any other parish and being accountable only to itself.


I was a part of a Catholic congregation for nearly 5 years. To argue that this parish considered itself completely and absolutely autonomous is, well, silly. The sign outside said "Catholic," the Catechism said "Catholic" on it, the parish certainly was UNDER an authority OUTSIDE of it - the bishop, archbishop, the Magisterium and the Pope. I saw a high level of cooperation between parishes. Even the selection of our priests were largely an issue OUTSIDE and above us. I've never in my life seen a church that is MORE denominational in nature than is the RCC.


Back to the topic...


Pax!


- Josiah



.

CJ, you must understand that the universal Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are pre-denominational.

 

[thereselittleflower]

For further information as to what constitutes denominations:

Denominationalism is an ideology which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all churches teach this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term as its implication of interchangeability does not agree with their theological teachings. There are some groups which practically all others would view as apostate or heretical, and not legitimate versions of Christianity.

http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-denomination
​

The use of the term denominations regarding Christian denominations began within Protestantism to describe its many subdivisions. It was never applied to Catholicism and Orthodoxy until recently as the use of this term changed.

Neither Catholicism or Orthodoxy have changed how we view and use this term, and just as we are not beholden to changes in Protestant use of the word "prayer", we are not beholden to changes in secular or Protestant uses of this term, the application of which to us fundamentally disagrees with our theological teachings.


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ, you must understand that the universal Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are pre-denominational.

I disagree.
It's non-institutional.


I accept the ONE holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church, the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. I just think those that are members of His Body are people rather than a specific legal/political institutional entity. It has nothing to do with the RCC or EO or LCMS or LDS or any other denomination. When I confess in the Creed that I believe in "one holy catholic church" that's EXACTLY what I mean because I'm Protestant - I don't have to cross my fingers or explain, "Well, we were one until the Pope split off" or "We should be one but we aren't" or "our singular particular denomination is one." And I don't have to redefine the word "catholic" to mean the proper name of a specific denomination (seemingly to contradict it's very meaning). That's why the issue of this thread seems a tad moot to me.



Thank you.


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[thereselittleflower]

Rome passed into the hands of the Cluniac reformers who developed the basis of the current heterodox Roman Catholic ecclessiology in an attempt to assert control within the west where they were locked in a power struggle with secular powers.

Oh this is absolutely bogus. This is just EO polemics and bias against the Catholic Church speaking, nothing more.

This is straight forward recorded history not mere polemic.

Horsefeathers! It is only polemic!

It's pretty clear historically that Rome was engaged in what amounted to a massive power struggle that caused conflict not only with the other ancient sees and also internally in western Europe, not least in Germany and England. Its a nonsense to try and paint a picture of Rome as not adopting an innovative ecclesiological position here.

What is nonsense (ie horsefeathers) is to attack the Catholic Church with polemics like this and never produce any actualy proof.

As for the excommunications its plain fact that it was a Roman Cardinal who initiated Rome's departure from the Church, by his attempts to remove another he effectively removed Rome itself. Rather amusingly St Cyprian who you later cite makes it quite clear that this is a possibility for Rome if she is unable to control her arrogance.

Again, horsefeathers! A Roman Cardinal and an EO Patriarch mutually excommunicated EACH OTHER!

These were PERSONAL Excommunications, and did not affect the standing of either Church with the other.

That EO continually paint this as something more than what it was, exaggerating what actually happened instead of speaking the simple truth of the matter, only helps to perpetuate the long stanging division that gradually developed due to polemics like hte ones above.

Actually it doesnt.

And you can argue till you are blue in the face, yet it is not going to change history to match your version . . .

Its odd that 80% of the Church should object on a point that even many of those within the Roman See were disputing. The natural assumption ( and historical evidence ) would suggest that it was in fact Rome making the false claim to authority, not everyone else.

80%?

Ummm . . the EO are much, much smaller than the Catholic Church . . . Just because there are more Sees in the East that does not mean that 80% of the Church exists in the East . . .

And where did most of the heresies of the Early Church arise? The East . .. where did Arianism arise and become the predominate Christological and Trinitarian position? The East . . .

Separation from the West, which was unavoidable due to geographical and political situations, results in such developing .. . we see this today even . . .

This is a huge misrepresentation, particularly of St Cyprian as anyone who's actually read beyond the typical heavily selective quotation used to justify Catholic claims will know.

As far as Orthodoxy dying goes I would suggest that some Catholics are simply fantasising when they make such claims.

Rather than engage in such polemics about what it means to be separated from the See of Rome, for the Catholic Church does not view the Orthodox to be outside the Church, I think it is important to recognize that errors in doctrine have crept into the Orthodox Churches because of their separation from the See of Rome . . .

Jesus made Peter the Chief Shepherd for a reason . . . . being divorced from the Chief Shepherd cannot be, and has not been, good for the flock so divorced . . . .


.

 

[NewToLife]

Oh this is absolutely bogus. This is just EO polemics and bias against the Catholic Church speaking, nothing more.

You deny the historical record if you attempt to brush over the Catholic Churches conflicts with the Holy roman Emperor. Its recorded history just as Cluniac reform and the great changes associated with it are recorded history. Lurkers may be interested for instance to learn that Crusades, a strange and hard to reconcile episode in Catholic history, were a Cluniac innovation also.

Horsefeathers! It is only polemic!

What is nonsense (ie horsefeathers) is to attack the Catholic Church with polemics like this and never produce any actualy proof.

Its history, perhaps its been censored in Catholic sources but its history nevertheless. Anyone can find the evidence if they have an interest, if you dont look only on Catholic sites even you can find this is perfectly accurate.

Again, horsefeathers! A Roman Cardinal and an EO Patriarch mutually excommunicated EACH OTHER!

These were PERSONAL Excommunications, and did not affect the standing of either Church with the other.

That EO continually paint this as something more than what it was, exaggerating what actually happened instead of speaking the simple truth of the matter, only helps to perpetuate the long stanging division that gradually developed due to polemics like hte ones above.

You are the ones that have attempted all manner of military attack and political blackmail to bend us to your will yet have the gall to accuse us of exagerating our differences?

And you can argue till you are blue in the face, yet it is not going to change history to match your version . . .

I dont need to alter history, I just need not to accept the Catholic revisionist versions of it.

80%?

Ummm . . the EO are much, much smaller than the Catholic Church . . . Just because there are more Sees in the East that does not mean that 80% of the Church exists in the East . . .

There are more Catholics now that is for sure.

And where did most of the heresies of the Early Church arise? The East . .. where did Arianism arise and become the predominate Christological and Trinitarian position? The East . . .

Yet these were defeated, unlike the innovations in Rome that are now set in stone thanks to the invention of Papal infallibility.

Separation from the West, which was unavoidable due to geographical and political situations, results in such developing .. . we see this today even . . .

Yeah the west has no problems with heterodox belief does it? You need to think about what you claim, Roman claims of supremacy and the inability to admit error that those claims breed have not only separated Rome from the Church but also resulted in the shattering of Christian unity in the west. Protestantism is part of the fruit of Roman ecclesiology, to ignore it in making such a statement is to delude yourself.

Rather than engage in such polemics about what it means to be separated from the See of Rome, for the Catholic Church does not view the Orthodox to be outside the Church, I think it is important to recognize that errors in doctrine have crept into the Orthodox Churches because of their separation from the See of Rome . . .

Normally Catholics accuse us of being theologically stunted because we refuse to alter, clearly that refusal to alter precludes your accusation from being true. On the other hand Catholic ideas about development of doctrine are very vulnerable to the entrance of error and naturally we see some deeply innovative and dubious doctrinal declarations in recent centuries.

Jesus made Peter the Chief Shepherd for a reason . . . . being divorced from the Chief Shepherd cannot be, and has not been, good for the flock so divorced . . . .

All Orthodox Bishops sit on the throne of Peter, being divorced from the supposed successor of St Peter in Rome is really of no consequence at all since there has been no true bishop in Rome for nearly a millenium.

As a final thought though, I responded only to a what I see as a Catholic polemicist post. Calling my post polemic really doesnt phase me when I perceive that you are happy to see polemic go unchallenged when it supports rather than opposes your view.

 

[Knowledge3]

I disagree.
It's non-institutional.


I accept the ONE holy CATHOLIC and apostolic church, the communion of saints, the community of faith, the mystical union of all believers. I just think those that are members of His Body are people rather than a specific legal/political institutional entity. It has nothing to do with the RCC or EO or LCMS or LDS or any other denomination. When I confess in the Creed that I believe in "one holy catholic church" that's EXACTLY what I mean because I'm Protestant - I don't have to cross my fingers or explain, "Well, we were one until the Pope split off" or "We should be one but we aren't" or "our singular particular denomination is one." And I don't have to redefine the word "catholic" to mean the proper name of a specific denomination (seemingly to contradict it's very meaning). That's why the issue of this thread seems a tad moot to me.



Thank you.


Pax.


- Josiah

You are entitled to your opinion and position, but the straight fact is that a universal Church cannot be properly understood as denomination.

LCMS and LDS, yes but not the CC or EO because of universality, pertaining and meaning according to the whole.

Denominationalism is the fruit of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are entitled to your opinion and position, but the straight fact is that a universal Church cannot be properly understood as denomination.

I COMPLETELY agree.
Which is why I reject the CC, EO and LDS view of the church and agree with the Protestant one.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You deny the historical record if you attempt to brush over the Catholic Churches conflicts with the Holy roman Emperor. Its recorded history just as Cluniac reform and the great changes associated with it are recorded history. Lurkers may be interested for instance to learn that Crusades, a strange and hard to reconcile episode in Catholic history, were a Cluniac innovation also.

I am not denying the historical record . . . I am denoucning your claims.

Produce the historical record if I am wrong.

And regarding the Crusades, some were conducted AT THE REQUEST OF THE EAST . . . .so now are you saying that the EAST was affected by "a Cluniac" innovation as well?

Its history, perhaps its been censored in Catholic sources but its history nevertheless. Anyone can find the evidence if they have an interest, if you dont look only on Catholic sites even you can find this is perfectly accurate.

LOL rather than assume what I have and have not looked at, you should concentrate on proving your claims

PRODUCE the evidence!

You are the ones that have attempted all manner of military attack and political blackmail to bend us to your will yet have the gall to accuse us of exagerating our differences?

Polemics . . . . unsubstantiated polemics. . nothing more . . .

I dont need to alter history, I just need not to accept the Catholic revisionist versions of it.

Again, mere polemics . .unsubstantiated polemics. . nothing more

There are more Catholics now that is for sure.

Where is your evidence that it was different?

Yet these were defeated, unlike the innovations in Rome that are now set in stone thanks to the invention of Papal infallibility.

Who defeated them? The WEST!

Yeah the west has no problems with heterodox belief does it?

Nope! Not one. We are not the ones who have changed our theology on certain matters because of expediency, we do not allow contraception . . we do not allow remarriage after divorce if the first marriage was indeed sacramentally valid, we are not the ones who changed our belefs regarding the Immaculate Conception . . .

The East though has departed from their ancient teachings on these matters . . .

We are not the ones who have entered into heterodoxy . .

You need to think about what you claim, Roman claims of supremacy and the inability to admit error that those claims breed have not only separated Rome from the Church but also resulted in the shattering of Christian unity in the west. Protestantism is part of the fruit of Roman ecclesiology, to ignore it in making such a statement is to delude yourself.

No, I am not the one who needs to think about this. . I studied this quite in depth and this is the reason I became Catholic instead of returning to the EO . . .

Perhaps this is something you should think about.

Normally Catholics accuse us of being theologically stunted because we refuse to alter, clearly that refusal to alter precludes your accusation from being true.

What would you call a child who stops developing?

If development of theological understanding has stopped in the East, what would you call that?

Yet, it is not really true that the East has stopped developing, it is just that the East has not formally defined such developments dogmatically by Eucumenical council . . Yet there have been developments in the theological understanding of the East, and some have been very negative and heterodox. It is simply not dogmatic . . and so one is free to accept or reject . .

Yet, for example, the East condones remarriage after divorce even if the first was sacramentally valid and the partner's prohibted from remarraige by Christ's own words

Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.​

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.​

Yet the EO, when it feels it is expedient, condones this committing of adultery by remarriage in direct opposition to Christ's own words for the sake of expediency!


This started as a result of the East's separation from the West due to political and geographical issues well before theological ones, and the Church in the EAST giving it's Divinely given authority over Marriage to the EMPEROR to decide issues of marriage . . . While remarriage after divorce was extremely restrictive and remained so for hundreds upon hundreds of years, ever since the Protestant Reformation, the restictions have been weakened to the point that it is much easier for an EO to get remarried after divorce for a number of reasons . . last count was 20 if I remember right, a recent development of the last century . . . where under the Emperor in the ancient East it was 1.

Opposed to this in the West the Catholic Church refuses to all remarriage unless the first union was not a true Sacramental one - one joined by God.


Would you like to get into the issue of the EO allowing contraception last century and that change in theology from forbidden to permissable?

On the other hand Catholic ideas about development of doctrine are very vulnerable to the entrance of error and naturally we see some deeply innovative and dubious doctrinal declarations in recent centuries.

Nothing more than an unsubstantiated clam . . polemics . . bias . . you should be looking in your own backyard. . . .

All Orthodox Bishops sit on the throne of Peter, being divorced from the supposed successor of St Peter in Rome is really of no consequence at all since there has been no true bishop in Rome for nearly a millenium.

Says who?

The keys of the kingdom were given only to ONE apostles. . Peter . . only HIS successors sit on his throne . . .

There is only ONE CHIEF SHEPHERD . . . the EO have divorced themselves from him . .

And so we see the heterodoxy being promoted I described above . . .


Padre Pio once said the EO are in agony . . . .


.


.

 

[Martureo]

[FONT=&quot]"Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiasticalaffairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him."

Since Chalcedon elevated the Bishop of Constantinople to the level of the Bishop of Rome it stands to reason that the Bishop of Rome had no power to Excommunicate someone on his level without consulting the rest of the Church in ecumenical council.

Secondly, the claims about innovations from both sides cannot be proven either way. However the Catholic sides do tend to approach things from the innovative concept of inherited guilt passed on by the Bishop of Hippo, Augustine. This is a mistranslation of the greek text and as Augustine could not read Greek he read the latin mistranslation of the phrase Eph Ho, which was mistranslated in the latin to In Quo. According to the Catholic renowned scholar LT. Johnson and all credible biblical scholars today that is.

Thirdly the Pope was demanding not only a reversal of Chalcedon, but actually and addendum declaring him as the sole supreme authority over all churches, and this was overstepping his role as the beloved eldest brother.
[/FONT]

 

[Knowledge3]

. .
We are not the ones who have entered into heterodoxy . .

How can strict & doctrinal Orthodoxy be heterodox?

 

[Knowledge3]

Thirdly the Pope was demanding not only a reversal of Chalcedon, but actually and addendum declaring him as the sole supreme authority over all churches, and this was overstepping his role as the beloved eldest brother.

Not to mention the local western council of Toledo that inserted the Filioque which I reject and without the consent of an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Knowledge3]

Padre Pio once said the EO are in agony . . .

I have a high amount of reverence for Padre Pio.

Do you have an actual and authentic quote that proves St. Pio actually made this statement?

 

[NewToLife]

I wont address the bulk of your post as to be honest I know full well it will only produce another enormous response. I will simply address a couple of points as they are illustrative of your approach in general.

And regarding the Crusades, some were conducted AT THE REQUEST OF THE EAST . . . .so now are you saying that the EAST was affected by "a Cluniac" innovation as well?

You make the observation that some crusades were at the request of the East. Anyone with an iota of knowledge on the subject will be fully aware that the request concerned came not from the Eastern church but rather from the Byzantine Empire and was for limited military to aid in reconquest rather than for a 'crusade'. Clearly the crusade launched was not what was requested and suited Papal aims far more than those of the East in general and the Eadtern Church in particular. This can be ascertained from the original request and observed by reference to the Alexiad which illustrates quite plainly the reaction to the first crusade and the theology underlying it. So, no I'm not saying that Cluniac reform affected eastern theology, that you even try to make such a claim undermines your position.

Yet, for example, the East condones remarriage after divorce even if the first was sacramentally valid and the partner's prohibted from remarraige by Christ's own words
Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Yet the EO, when it feels it is expedient, condones this committing of adultery by remarriage in direct opposition to Christ's own words for the sake of expediency!

Actually we do this as an act of mercy, we are not rulebound lawyers with no compassion in our hearts. We recognise divorce as sinful but recognise that people sin and exercise mercy to aid in their reconcilliation to the Church. If you cannot reconcile such an approach to the gospels then I guess you find adhering to the spirit rather than the letter of the law unacceptable ( scripture has a comment on such an attitude if you care to look for it ). For the records the roots of this approach are visible pre-schism, in the work of St Basil the Great for instance.

Opposed to this in the West the Catholic Church refuses to all remarriage unless the first union was not a true Sacramental one - one joined by God.

Would you like to get into the issue of the EO allowing contraception last century and that change in theology from forbidden to permissable?

And what is the result? Myriad catholics who simply ignore the Church on the issue altogether, Catholicism has almost exterminated itself in Europe as people have become educated enough to see Catholic teaching in these areas for the legalistic nonsence that they are, as education spreads in the third world no doubt it will eliminate itself there too. Also historically we have a whole country ( England ) removed from catholicism over this issue. For the lack of a little mercy you divide what you claim to be the Church.

We wont even mention the absurd workarounds Catholic lawcourts provide where they pretend marriages that clearly existed did not in order to feign faithfulness to the law. Then we have NFP, contraception to anyone honest enough to admit it. At least the Orthodox approach is honest.

Where is your evidence that it was different?

Are you seriously expecting people to take your view that the demographic today is the same as a millenium ago seriously? I submit that some requests for evidence are far too obvious for the attempts to obscure rather than reveal truth that they are. You'll be demanding I prove I have a nose sitting in the middle of my face next......

Says who?

The keys of the kingdom were given only to ONE apostles. . Peter . . only HIS successors sit on his throne . .

When Rome can actually make a serious and compelling case that his only successors are the Roman Popes your shrill assertion might hold some weight. As it stands the evidence presented by Catholic apologists tends to look quite impressive initially but doesnt actually stand up to scrutiny once you examine it a little more closely.

I wont reply to you further so feel free to have the final word.

 

[prodromos]

How did Rome break away from the other four? All Rome did was issue a personal excommunication against the Patriarch of Constantinople after he closed and attacked Latin parishes.

I think you will find the wording of the bull of excommunication included all who were in agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Remember too that Constantinople closed the Latin churches within the city in response to the forcing of Latin practices on Byzantine churches in Southern Italy, churches which were under Constantinople's jurisdiction.

John

 

[thereselittleflower]

I have a high amount of reverence for Padre Pio.

Do you have an actual and authentic quote that proves St. Pio actually made this statement?

It was in one of the books I read a few years ago . .I found it startling at the time. I am sorry, but I don't remember which book.


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I think you will find the wording of the bull of excommunication included all who were in agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Produce it prodromos . . the excomunications were personal and all historical sources, both East and West I have ever read have admitted to this . ..none have even suggested what you have above.

Remember too that Constantinople closed the Latin churches within the city in response to the forcing of Latin practices on Byzantine churches in Southern Italy, churches which were under Constantinople's jurisdiction.

John

It was all political . . .



.