Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

OIC1965

Well-known member
Sep 19, 2020
2,754
1,016
113
You do realize the Bible is vastly interpreted. How do you not interpret the Bible for yourself? Do you stone witches as the Bible tells you to? Do you really think that's a good idea? After all, there's no such thing as interpretation and only the Bible. This is why the Pope exists to make the interpretation for a modern world. No matter how you try to cut, people interpret the Bible, they don't actually practice things like that.
The practice of stoning witches is an old covenant precept. We do not live under the Old Covenant, we live under the New Covenant. If you are unable to discern the difference, you need to read the New Testament more closely.
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
Do you deny that Peter is the only Apostle that had their name changed by God? No reason for that? What about Peter receiving Divine Revelation straight from the Father. There are many other ways the Gospels singles out Peter. That was for no reason? Wasted moves?
What is the reason and show me the verse that support you claim
 

Athanasius377

Active member
Aug 20, 2020
207
86
28
Northern Kentucky
I'm confused by the term 'proto-orthodox.' It seems an oxymoron to me. A straight teaching before a straight teaching.
Meaning before the church had to confront errors and heresies like Araiansim and Modalism and the like. It’s not an ideal term but the best one I have seen used.
 

OIC1965

Well-known member
Sep 19, 2020
2,754
1,016
113
Meaning before the church had to confront errors and heresies like Araiansim and Modalism and the like. It’s not an ideal term but the best one I have seen used.
Yes, a lot of doctrine, good and bad, came about as a result of contending against heresies
 

Athanasius377

Active member
Aug 20, 2020
207
86
28
Northern Kentucky
Wouldn't you think that the accusation of errant doctrine requires the time and the infamous doctrine as evidence? I mean the Eastern Orthodox pin it down like that. Time, place, doctrinal dispute everything. Its an extraordinary claim and requires evidence to match. What you have is misty and vague mounted on fantastic conspiracy for support. Just sayin'
Finally a sane argument. Thank you for your response. What I mean is the introduction of ideas like a priest instead of a Presbyter. Recall there are no NT priests. The idea arises a couple of centuries later. When exactly, difficult to say. Or when Presbyters and Episcopoi became separate offices. They are used interchangeably in the NT but by the time of Ignatius of Antioch they are separate in the early 2nd century. Depending on the version of IofA you are reading. There is a later Latin recession that expands greatly in what we think was the original. Yet we also have 1st Clement which seems to indicate there was a plurality of Presbyters not a monarchical episcopate in Rome. That seems to occur later. That is what I mean. I can offer more evidence when I get back home and reference my library. The point is that there isn’t a date we can point to. Only when changes appear in the historical record.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
13,003
4,315
113
Why do people attack Catholics as false, when we're the mutant spawn that arose from the original church? How does one reconcile their beliefs knowing that Catholicism came first?
this isn an error the "catholic church is not the original " Church". Jesus did not call us to a denomination. The Gospel Came first and IS the Supreme Message of the church The death, burial , and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. IT did not come first. Paul preached Jesus and Him crucified and rose again from the Dead. HE was a witness and spoke what the Holy Spirit gave HIM and the Old Testament Your RCC agenda did not save us , Jesus did. Take that RCC foolishness and go to another RCC site.

Thank you.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
Catholics are Christians because they believe in the Apostles' Creed. They have some other practices but it doesn't negate from the fact they are Christians. Most of the Supreme Court is Catholic, and Trump is planning to nominate another.
https://time.com/4040450/pope-francis-us-visit-catholic-lawmakers/
I find the question of whether Catholics are Christian to be more complex than that. It really boils down to a couple of key issues that can go either way as far as Catholic belief. Certainly their catechisms and such can be read to be in agreement with the essentials of Christianity, but there are also teachers who cross the line into pagan practices.

An example would be Catholic soteriology. The catechisms actually fall within Biblical revelation as far as wholly attributing the effective portion of salvation to Christ and the cross. Yet the way they do this can lead to misconceptions among both clergy and laity alike towards the economy of salvation. Instead of recognizing the essential truth of salvation by grace through faith, many clergy teach that it is the sacraments that are efficacious for salvation in themselves. This is not in accord with central catechisms, but it is within orthodox Catholic teachings as it gets presented without causing an uproar.

Of course the most problematic aspect of Catholicism is the veneration of Mary, particularly in treating her as an intercessor. The first part is possibly within tolerance, but the second absolutely is not. While there is much lip service done to distance themselves from Mary worship the reality is that their veneration of Mary is often taken beyond simply honoring a great human to outright worship among the laity. So the question here that is important is which defines Catholicism, the catechisms or what is happening in practice, as the former is crafted in such a way to skirt the line and the latter often goes well over.

Ultimately, whether Catholics are Christians does not present itself as an easy question to answer because they have adopted many non-Christian practices some of which go directly against things that are generally held as essential.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,495
113
Anyway. Back to the OP. The oldest faith would be proto -Judaism as revealed to Adam and the patriarchs. The oldest Christian body would be the proto-orthodox as exemplified by the church in the book of Acts. This body became the church catholic (meaning universal, NOT Rome). Rome is indeed ancient, but not ancient enough and certainly not catholic. Rome was part of of the church catholic in the west but over time became heterodox. As to when? I’m not sure you can put a date on it. Error began creeping in very early especially once the church became the official religion of the Empire under Theodosious I. Writers at the time knew there were problems thats why you see the rise of monasticism in the fourth century.
It was a dead giveaway when Constatine invited 1800 bishops to the council of Nicaea, all expenses paid?

Only 318 showed up, that tells you where the Roman Catholic State Church was in 325AD

The Land of Vatican City was donated to this State Church by Constatine, he built the original St. Peters Basilica

The true Christian lineage existed outside of Roman Catholicism's grip, and they were heavily persecuted for it.
 
Aug 14, 2019
1,374
307
83
What is the reason and show me the verse that support you claim
no, I asked you first.
I want to know why the Father singled out Peter to reveal His Son to according to you. Why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter and gave Peter authority before the others. Why Jesus told only Peter to feed His flock. These are things that happened only to Peter. What do you believe those things happened to Peter for?
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
It was a dead giveaway when Constatine invited 1800 bishops to the council of Nicaea, all expenses paid?

Only 318 showed up, that tells you where the Roman Catholic State Church was in 325AD

The Land of Vatican City was donated to this State Church by Constatine, he built the original St. Peters Basilica

The true Christian lineage existed outside of Roman Catholicism's grip, and they were heavily persecuted for it.
Do you have a source for all of this?

And what about establishing that it is not within the Christian faith to deny the complete deity of Christ do you find objectionable?
 

Jackson123

Senior Member
Feb 6, 2014
11,769
1,371
113
no, I asked you first.
I want to know why the Father singled out Peter to reveal His Son to according to you. Why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter and gave Peter authority before the others. Why Jesus told only Peter to feed His flock. These are things that happened only to Peter. What do you believe those things happened to Peter for?
I don't know the reason.
As far as feed His flock, you have to know what is feed mean?
 
Aug 14, 2019
1,374
307
83
It was a dead giveaway when Constatine invited 1800 bishops to the council of Nicaea, all expenses paid?

Only 318 showed up, that tells you where the Roman Catholic State Church was in 325AD

The Land of Vatican City was donated to this State Church by Constatine, he built the original St. Peters Basilica

The true Christian lineage existed outside of Roman Catholicism's grip, and they were heavily persecuted for it.
Jesus did not call us to a denomination.
I agree. The Catholic Church is not a de nomin ation.
The reformers are the de- named.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
no, I asked you first.
I want to know why the Father singled out Peter to reveal His Son to according to you. Why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter and gave Peter authority before the others. Why Jesus told only Peter to feed His flock. These are things that happened only to Peter. What do you believe those things happened to Peter for?
Just for kicks, can you show a single source prior to Leo's Sermon 3 that makes that argument? Seems rather strange that not a single Christian mentioned the papacy or Peter's succession for 440 years if it is such an integral doctrine so you shouldn't have any trouble if it's true.
 

Robertt

Well-known member
May 22, 2019
899
320
63
Bahrain
Yes, the first mentioned sect or denomination is the Nazarene. The Catholic sect is not listed. We walk by faith, the unseen eternal . It working in us inform us of those who say we do need a man to teach us. Identifying them as antichrists.

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:26-27
and yet the letter it self is teaching so is that Paul contradicting himself or humans misunderstanding.

Obviusly we all need teaching or we would not have Epistles written to us to explain how to live.

But each to their own beleif. Enough scriptures to back every doctrine ever created.
But i tend to belevie that Paul and the other Apostles knew we needed teaching until we are no longer here

Especially when Paul writes in Eph 4:11 onwards about the need for Apostles. Prophets, Evangelists and Pastors , Teachers , UNTIL we are made Perfect in One ness. We not there yet so we still need teachign
 
Aug 14, 2019
1,374
307
83
Just for kicks, can you show a single source prior to Leo's Sermon 3 that makes that argument? Seems rather strange that not a single Christian mentioned the papacy or Peter's succession for 440 years if it is such an integral doctrine so you shouldn't have any trouble if it's true.
Might have something to do with the death sentence attached to the office. I think it's like the first 16 or so successors were killed. That in itself is evidence. Someone in Rome didn't like Peter there and anyone else who might lead the Roman citizens who converted.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,495
113
Do you have a source for all of this?

And what about establishing that it is not within the Christian faith to deny the complete deity of Christ do you find objectionable?
In my claim I have the higher number in attendance at 318

Wikipedia: First Council Of Nicaea

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[22] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[23] (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[24] and Evagrius,[25] Hilary of Poitiers,[26] Jerome,[27] Dionysius Exiguus,[28] and Rufinus[29] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[30] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[citation needed]
Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire, including Britain, and from the Christian churches extant within the Sassanid Empire.[31] The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the Council, as well as lodging.

Wikipedia: Constatine The Great

His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old Saint Peter's Basilica. In constructing the Old Saint Peter's Basilica, Constantine went to great lengths to erect the basilica on top of St. Peter's resting place, so much so that it even affected the design of the basilica, including the challenge of erecting it on the hill where St. Peter rested, making its complete construction time over 30 years from the date Constantine ordered it to be built.

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the emperor to have great influence and authority in the early Christian councils, most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring to establish an orthodoxy.[229] His influence over the Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; the Church's role was to determine proper worship, doctrines, and dogma.[230]
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
Might have something to do with the death sentence attached to the office. I think it's like the first 16 or so successors were killed. That in itself is evidence. Someone in Rome didn't like Peter there and anyone else who might lead the Roman citizens who converted.
That really doesn't make much sense considering there is quite a bit of writing done on the episcopate and the structuring of the early church. If there were any Petrine succession it wouldn't have taken 440 years for someone to claim as much, even under persecution.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
425
83
In my claim I have the higher number in attendance at 318

Wikipedia: First Council Of Nicaea

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[22] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[23] (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[24] and Evagrius,[25] Hilary of Poitiers,[26] Jerome,[27] Dionysius Exiguus,[28] and Rufinus[29] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church[30] and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[citation needed]
Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire, including Britain, and from the Christian churches extant within the Sassanid Empire.[31] The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the Council, as well as lodging.

Wikipedia: Constatine The Great

His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Old Saint Peter's Basilica. In constructing the Old Saint Peter's Basilica, Constantine went to great lengths to erect the basilica on top of St. Peter's resting place, so much so that it even affected the design of the basilica, including the challenge of erecting it on the hill where St. Peter rested, making its complete construction time over 30 years from the date Constantine ordered it to be built.

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the emperor to have great influence and authority in the early Christian councils, most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring to establish an orthodoxy.[229] His influence over the Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; the Church's role was to determine proper worship, doctrines, and dogma.[230]
The bit I was objecting to is the expenses paid on the invitation, I've never seen such a claim and it doesn't seem likely. Inviting all the bishops shows Constantine had exactly the intent he stated with the council, which is to get a unified statement on the Arian controversy. The number that showed up is because of the danger and expense of travelling, but the diversity from which they came speaks to the universal voice of the church in the matter.

Though the more interesting question you left unanswered.

Constantine certainly reshaped the church and is one marker along the way to the modern state, but the boogeyman that critics make him is often well beyond the influence he actually did have.