Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Skeptic92

In strict terms, he's correct the Title of Pope originally (and still does) refer to the Patriarch of Alexandria, however Papa (the Latin from which we get Pope) also was used to refer to the Bishop of Rome/Patriarch of the West, just because the common usage means the Pope of Rome, doesn't mean he solely uses that title, the Pope of Alexandria is just as ancient as the Pope of Rome, just one is also the Successor of Saint Peter, while the other is not (I can't actually remember who founded the Apostolic See of Alexandria?)

That would be St. Mark the Evangelist, a disciple of St. Peter and author of the Gospel of Mark. In some sense, he sort of is a successor of St. Peter

True, but in the way most people think of Pope, it is synonymous with being the Bishop of Rome, which would make it historically accurate as Saint Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome, and his successors are the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his Martyrdom there.

Historically, I think that is rather questionable as well. The common convention for the first two or three centuries was not to list the apostle who founded a see as its first bishop. See http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=126 for a passage written by Francis Dvornik, a Roman Catholic priest and historian, which corroborates this view.

[Ambrosian]

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I believe you are saying that the many denominations of Protestantism do not practice the Christian religion, and perhaps inferring that Protestants are not Christians. This reminds me of what some who practice Orthodox Judaism say about Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism, namely that these heretical movements are not Judaism even though those who practice them are still regarded as Jews. I disagree with that way of thinking. My view is that Protestantism is a Christian religion even if it may not contain the whole truth of Christianity according to Catholicism. And Trinitarian Protestants are, according to the Catholic Church, Christians. They do not worship other gods, but the same G-d in a different way.

Friend, when I say protestant denominations do not practice Christianity, I mean fully. The Messiah obviously and clearly appointed Simon Peter the pastor of the Church. If one denies the very essence and structure of the Church, which is Christ's Mystical Body, one denies the very essence of what Christ is. To deny that the Pope is supreme over all bishops is to deny that Christ is supreme over all idols and pagan religions.

Protestants might passionately believe that Christ is their pope (as it were), but this is like refusing to speak to the King's legitimate steward because one must speak to the King directly! Anglicans may truly think Canterbury is their symbol of unity, but he is Moloch to YHWH. Orthodox may really, innocently believe that Constantinople is their primacy, but he is Ba'al to Adonai. Just as the ancient idolaters were often innocently wrong, so with the crisis over who is head of the Church! It tends to be very sadly impounded in peoples' heads from a young age, and they don't know they're wrong. Simply because one has the right intention does not make the offering immediately right.

Christ the Lord established one Church; that Church is His Body. To say that the Pope isn't the guide of the Body, yet to claim to be part of the Body (Protestants, at least), is a contradiction. The True Body is that which is under the Pope. Without the Pope, it is a mask, an imitation, a stage-play!

The Orthodox may be viewed in a similar way? Perhaps they've taken the ancient stage actions from the director, and haven't changed much, but the fact is that they lack the director. They've taken the true title of Popes in the ancient days (Ecumenical Patriarch) and applied it to their own actor. There are so many legalistic distinctions possible...

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Ambrosian

Friend, when I say protestant denominations do not practice Christianity, I mean fully. The Messiah obviously and clearly appointed Simon Peter the pastor of the Church. If one denies the very essence and structure of the Church, which is Christ's Mystical Body, one denies the very essence of what Christ is. To deny that the Pope is supreme over all bishops is to deny that Christ is supreme over all idols and pagan religions.

Christ established one Church; that Church is His Body. To say that the Pope isn't the guide of the Body, yet to claim to be part of the Body (Protestants, at least), is a contradiction. The True Body is that which is under the Pope. Without the Pope, it is a mask, an imitation, a stage-play!

The Orthodox may be viewed in a similar way? Perhaps they've taken the ancient stage actions from the director, and haven't changed much, but the fact is that they lack the director. They've taken the true title of Popes in the ancient days (Ecumenical Patriarch) and applied it to their own actor. There are so many legalistic distinctions possible...

The pope was never called ecumenical patriarch. In addition, I find the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarchate somehow usurped the power of the pope of Rome to be nothing more than historical fiction.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Ambrosian

Friend, when I say protestant denominations do not practice Christianity, I mean fully. The Messiah obviously and clearly appointed Simon Peter the pastor of the Church. If one denies the very essence and structure of the Church, which is Christ's Mystical Body, one denies the very essence of what Christ is. To deny that the Pope is supreme over all bishops is to deny that Christ is supreme over all idols and pagan religions.

Protestants might passionately believe that Christ is their pope (as it were), but this is like refusing to speak to the King's legitimate steward because one must speak to the King directly! Anglicans may truly think Canterbury is their symbol of unity, but he is Moloch to YHWH. Orthodox may really, innocently believe that Constantinople is their primacy, but he is Ba'al to Adonai. Just as the ancient idolaters were often innocently wrong, so with the crisis over who is head of the Church! It tends to be very sadly impounded in peoples' heads from a young age, and they don't know they're wrong. Simply because one has the right intention does not make the offering immediately right.

Christ the Lord established one Church; that Church is His Body. To say that the Pope isn't the guide of the Body, yet to claim to be part of the Body (Protestants, at least), is a contradiction. The True Body is that which is under the Pope. Without the Pope, it is a mask, an imitation, a stage-play!

The Orthodox may be viewed in a similar way? Perhaps they've taken the ancient stage actions from the director, and haven't changed much, but the fact is that they lack the director. They've taken the true title of Popes in the ancient days (Ecumenical Patriarch) and applied it to their own actor. There are so many legalistic distinctions possible...

Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint.

[Ambrosian]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The pope was never called ecumenical patriarch.

Brother, in session III of Chalcedon Leo was addressed to, by Eusebius, as: "The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo..."

http://newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

Throughout that Council, Leo is the only bishop called "most holy", "most blessed", "apostolic", etc.

It is the ancient Christian religion; not "the most ancient", or "an ancient", but the ancient, as God is not the most ancient religious idea of men, but is The Ancient of Days.

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint.

You are quite welcome!

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by Skeptic92

I'm sorry but I haven't heard this before, would you mind citing a source?

It's an old rumor but certainly didn't happen

Matthew 13:54-57
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.”

If Jesus had traveled as some claim, the people of Nazareth would have assumed that he gained wisdom in his travels. Since they question him they attest that he was always among them. Likewise, Jesus responds that a prophet is honored everywhere except his own home (he testifies that he spent his whole life among them).

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Ambrosian

Brother, in session III of Chalcedon Leo was addressed to, by Eusebius, as: "The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo..."

http://newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm

Throughout that Council, Leo is the only bishop called "most holy", "most blessed", "apostolic", etc.

It is the ancient Christian religion; not "the most ancient", or "an ancient", but the ancient, as God is not the most ancient religious idea of men, but is The Ancient of Days.

However, if we examine the minutes of Ephesus II, we'll see that Dioscoros is called, "our most holy father Dioscorus, ecumenical archbishop of the great city of Alexandria." The only times I can see in the council where Pope Leo is called ecumenical archbishop are the appeals written by the plaintiffs who wished to have Ephesus II overturned. It would, of course, be to their benefit to use such flowery language when addressing pope Leo. (now unless I am missing something, the council never refers to pope Leo in such a way, just the plaintiffs)

This usage however, has nothing to do with the official title, "Ecumenical Patriarch," but rather only has to do with the plaintiffs calling pope Leo the "Universal Patriarch." The actual title Ecumenical Patriarch comes by way of the Patriarch of Constantinople's connection with the city of Constantinople, which eventually began to be known as the Ecumenical City. It was only natural that the patriarch residing in the Ecumenical City should become known officially as the Ecumenical Patriarch. It has a completely different connotation from how the word Ecumenical is used in the council of Chalcedon.

Pope Leo was also not the only one to be known as most holy at the council. The problem is that what you linked is a highly abridged edition. Here are a few examples of other bishops being called most holy from a complete translation of the acts:

From the first session:

"85. When it had been received, John presbyter and protonotary said: ‘Another pious decree was sent to our most holy and God-beloved Archbishop Dioscorus, which we have in our hands for the pleasure of your holiness.’"

And here are some readings from the minutes of Ephesus II in which Dioscoros was called most holy:

"200. Stephen bishop of Ephesus said: ‘Since the proposal of our most holy and God-beloved father and Archbishop Dioscorus is a fair one, let it be put into effect.’"
"201. Cyrus bishop of Aphrodisias said: ‘The proposal of the most Godbeloved and holy Archbishop Dioscorus for the reading of the proceedings in the case in the imperial city is both fair and fitting.’"
"213. Atticus bishop of Nicopolis in Epirus Vetus said: ‘Since the proposal of our most holy Archbishop Dioscorus is fitting, let it be put into effect and the minutes be read to all the most holy council to give more accurate information about the points under examination.’"
"215. Uranius bishop of Hemerium in the province of Osrhoene, with Eulogius presbyter of Edessa acting as interpreter, said: ‘The most holy and religious Archbishop Dioscorus has made a fitting proposal that the proceedings at all-fortunate Constantinople about the case in question should first be read.’"

As you know, Dioscoros was later deposed by the council for failing to show up after being summoned three times.

Here they are also in the first session, calling the reposed Archbishop Flavian 'most holy':

"293. Athanasius the most devout bishop of Busiris of Tripolis in Egypt said: ‘The most holy Bishop Flavian followed the letters of the most sacred Cyril, and expounded the faith well.’"
"294. Auxonius the most devout bishop of Sebennytus said: ‘The most holy and devout Bishop Flavian thought and spoke in harmony with the teaching of Cyril as contained in the letters of the most sacred Cyril that have been read.’"

There are plenty of other examples of even minor bishops being called "most holy," "most blessed," "most God-beloved," "most devout," or "most religious" throughout the acts of Chalcedon, so I'm not sure if this is a good argument. The honorific language being applied to pope Leo was pretty standard for all people of high ranking during the time period.

[Ambrosian]

Those are good points, Cavaradossi... since it's hard to say just how much is abridged in the New Advent version, I won't contest you.

Thanks for showing me up!

[JharekCarnelian]

To deny that the Pope is supreme over all bishops is to deny that Christ is supreme over all idols and pagan religions.

Only if one inclines towards false dilemmas, the two are not reliant on each other. One can believe the latter and disbelieve the former as many Christians do. I would disagree with them but would not conclude that therefore because they do not share my views on the Pope they deny Christ's supremacy as part of the Godhead.

As to comments about the Orthodox and Ba'al those are simply rabble rousing and and are not a manner in which we should speak of our fellow Christians in apostolic Churches.

[Ambrosian]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Only if one inclines towards false dilemmas, the two are not reliant on each other. One can believe the latter and disbelieve the former as many Christians do. I would disagree with them but would not conclude that therefore because they do not share my views on the Pope they deny Christ's supremacy as part of the Godhead.

Sorry, that was a bad metaphor on my part. I meant to compare the two, not to literally say that one is the other. Must use grammar better on the internet, in lieu of the ability to articulate stresses and accents.

As to comments about the Orthodox and Ba'al those are simply rabble rousing and and are not a manner in which we should speak of our fellow Christians in apostolic Churches.

Well, they do claim to worship the true God, but do not follow His most important ecclesiastic command. Think of it: without the Church we would have no sacraments. Without Peter, there is no Church to build on. Denying supremacy goes very deep, if it is let out to run loose...

[JharekCarnelian]

Well, they do claim to worship the true God, but do not follow His most important ecclesiastic command. Think of it: without the Church we would have no sacraments. Without Peter, there is no Church to build on. Denying supremacy goes very deep, if it is let out to run loose...

The Orthodox do not claim to worship the one true God, they most definitely do worship the true God. Indeed without the Church we would have no sacraments and the Orthodox have valid sacraments. Bearing that in mind it is not a supportable conclusion that the Orthodox only 'claim' to worship the one true God as their clergy confect a valid Eucharist and all their sacred mysteries are valid also.

[ConstantineTG]

Is this thread going to devolve into another "are the Orthodox true Churches or not" discussion?

[Ambrosian]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Is this thread going to devolve into another "are the Orthodox true Churches or not" discussion?

Is that usually how this sub-forum goes? If so, then yes. We human beings love our traditions, no matter how ridiculous!

I just don't know, anyway. I should keep silence, but questions must be asked sometimes.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Ambrosian

Is that usually how this sub-forum goes? If so, then yes. We human beings love our traditions, no matter how ridiculous!

I just don't know, anyway. I should keep silence, but questions must be asked sometimes.

Well, anytime the Orthodox is brought into the conversation it ensues a lengthy argument about the Orthodox not recognizing the Pope and all the usual polemics. And usually not by the Eastern Catholics, because we love our Orthodox brethren and yearn that we may be united soon.

Yes, it is an odd tradition in CAF.

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by Ambrosian

Is that usually how this sub-forum goes? If so, then yes. We human beings love our traditions, no matter how ridiculous!

I just don't know, anyway. I should keep silence, but questions must be asked sometimes.

Indeed, however the Orthodox do not have ridiculous traditions, but ones worthy of great respect and a history of equally great worth which is well worth all Christians exploring. There is no question that the Orthodox Churches are valid. Indeed as Constantine points out we often end up with that kind of 'No they are not' and 'Yes they are' panto like dscussion going on at length. Implying the Orthodox do not worship the same one true God is a bizarre charge and a new one, I've seen it implied they are not truly Churches before (a point Catholic teaching disagrees on) but I have never seen it contested they do not worship God.

As I say, since the Catholic Church teaches us that these particular Churches (amongst some others) confect valid Eucharists contending they worship some force or divine actor instead of the Trinity seems something of a non-starter.