What came first Roman Catholic or Catholic?

Answer 1

The Catholic Church --- And here is a followed basis for this observation using PUBLIC credentialed Arenas of verifiable INFORMATION. Only those who say it is an opinion, are usually the ones who don't have any sources...

Yours is the opinion. I gave you a Link and Reference to all the Popes since St. Peter from an unbiased source. What references can you give us to your answer that Eastern Orthodoxy is The o nly true Church from The Apostolic Times other than "your" heresay...Why couldn't a Mormon, Baptist, etc... do the same? All you did was opine.

I produced a Referenced point that clearly shows The Bishop Of Rome, The Pope in succession from The Apostle Peter in every major Encyclopedia or PUBLIC reference materials... Where are Andrew's successors? You still have not shown us your PUBLIC reference for this.

Neither Rome nor Constantinople can PROVE an apostolic succession. Posting a list of men and dates is not sufficient. Your claim is that, beginning with one of the original apostles, all of your "clergy "have been ordained by two or three who were themselves ordained by two or three, in an unbroken succession, passing on apostolic power and authority by the laying on of hands. You need the names of all of these empowered ordainers, the dates and places where these acts took place, and certification by those present; not some hearsay from 300 years later. There are no such records, so you cannot prove your assertions.

Answer: Actually it is enough. It's called Historical Precedence. We all know George Washington was The First President of the United States, right? How do we know this? Because he said it or because History has recorded that "FIRST MAN" who was the FIRST PRESIDENT? Historical Precedence is what is used in a court of law to prove a case has precedence from the past or not. Same with Christianity.

It is silly to accept, say, Eusebius ,as a testator to events of the first centuries, since he lived in the late third and early fourth century. He can't testify to that which he did not personally witness. This is Gods standard, Acts 1.21-22.

Answer: Eusebius was not the first to write a list of The Popes of Rome. Actually, Irenaes of Lyon in about 170 AD did the same. This was a clear and accurate Truth held as a Historic Precedence from Peter to Benedict XVI today. My links below prove and justify it. Not mere man, the Precedence of History.

Further, the musings of the ante and postnicene "fathers" are entirely without merit, since their apostasy via establishing the scripturally unauthorized monarchical episcopate, the idolatry of transsubstantiation, the deliberate disobedience of a celibate church leadership, the blasphemy of the doctrine of "original sin"; had removed them from the roll of the saved and consigned them to perdition.

Answer: Now you are going off on a Tangent of Belief systems. This has to do with Historical precedence. Please stay on topic or else all you will be doing is morphing history with belief and that's not what this is about.

Greece was evangelized before Rome, according to the NT. So the orthodox came before the Romans. And the orthodox have never offered the false roman pretensions of transsubstantiation and priestly power to forgive sins. Nor did they bring the unauthorized musical instrument into worship as did the Romans, Both err by refusing to obey scripture; the Word of God.

Answer: Greece was NOT evangelizd before Rome since even in the scriptures we see Paul writing to The Romans. There was a Christian Church there in 60AD already.

ALL PUBLIC SOURCES OF INFORMATION. Where are Bartholomew's Successors? You can't name a single Public Successor Historically, you can't claim Supremacy... Does the Eastern Oerthodox Church have Apostolic Succession? Yes. Does it's History record it? No. Un Proveable. Thus far. I will be happy to concede if you can find just ONE Eastern or Western Father of The Church who wrote down all the Successors of EO'y... Strangely enough, Eastern Father Eusebius wrote down ONLY the Roman Popes.

REF: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0839708.HTML

REF: http://www.britannia.com/history/resource/popes.HTML

REF: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-popesTABLE.HTML

Futhermore, I do not see any Official Titles for "Eastern Orthodox Church" arise until about the mid 1200's...

Again...Here are solid references from reliable sources. Not opinions, as you call them to be. Britannicca names ALL 265 Popes. Encyclopedia.com shows ALL of the POPES.. They are "ROMAN" by the way...

What about The Eastern Church? Let's see what it had to say concerning The papacy, since you are not aprised of this.

REF: http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

Are you now telling us that Patriarchs such as Chrysostom whom, I noted as a REFERENCE which you can verify, were not in touch 700 years before the great Schism of 1054? Here is an example of Eastern Patriarch's Writings....Just a sampling... With a REFERENCE you or anyone can look up and he was one of legion eastern fathers who turned to Rome as The Beacon of Truth to settle disputes yet you claim They were Eastern Orthodox? By whose history?

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

"Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, &c.' This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe. (Chrysostom, T. iii Hom)."

I will not erase your answers, if you do not erase mine and we continue to dialogue and allow the Folks to decide whose references to follow or not...

NOTE: This is from a different writer.

-- I don't have the time nor the dedication to write so much about it. I never said that It was first or last or anything, my basis was that at the Great Schism of 1054, the church divided into the Two that are known today; The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Neither was created first, they were the same and became separate at the same time.

Onegroup separated from the other. "Roman" Catholic was never used at the schism only after the English Church split from Rome 500 years later. The Catholic Church can't "split" from Itself. That is a paradox. Groups can.. The The same Chuirch from the beginning stays the same. That's history. The Papal Line of succession shows this and The Esetrn Church was in union with It before the Scism so that equals logic sadly it was The Eastern Church that split FROM Rome.

I.E. There's no such thing as 2 winners in a POKER game. ;)

I am amazed at the zeal of my Catholic friends; I myself have been raised and brought up in the faith. That being said as a Theology major, I would not be doing any justice with absurd inaccurate historical facts. For this is precisely the case, as we must follow history on this one.

First off you have an Orthodox church, in the east/west that was the first name , keep that in mind. The East week of Greek origins and did Mass in that way, west did Latin. The east Churches had 5-bishops to govern the church, west had one. The one later became the Pope.

I think anyone can see the political ramifications at this point. The east seeing that one bishop was to strong, did not want to yield to that side of the church. Of course other issues money, war, liturgy complicated the issue. The split came when the west did not want the one bishop to join the others as bishops. The one bishop wanted to keep that side of the church and power. The split happened and that side(West) became the Roman-Catholic Church. Catholic in Latin means universal. But you did not have a Catholic(Universal) church first. Orthodox was the name of the East/West churches. They might have been trying to get to a Catholic theology of a universal system. Some to this day, say that the orthodox is the true Catholic Church. Roman-catholics at least in our papers call Orthodox-Catholics.

Orthodox first before the split!

Answer 2

Paganism is an umbrella term that covers all of the Old religions, Catholicism was recognised at about 325 CE when the Nicene Creed came into force. Catholicism has a lot of mystical elements which have been taken from older Pagan religions such as Mithraism, Zoroaster, the story of Hermes and Osiris-Dionysus to name but a few.

ANSWER paganism came first catholisism is a branch of christianty, which has only been around 2000 years paganism is many many more years older than that, it is oen of the first religions/beleif systems

Answer 3

The word 'catholic' means universal. There is no evidence that the very early Christians called their religion 'catholic' - in fact it appears that Christianity in the first century was highly fragmented, and thus far from catholic.

The term 'Catholic' may have come into use in the second or third century by the orthodox Christian Church, as a reaction against Gnostic Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, is arguably the product of the Great Schism of 1054, when the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches separated.

Answer 4

Catholic began in the first century when Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, founded His Church on the apostle Peter (the first Pope), read St. Matthew 16:17-19.

Roman is an epithet first commonly used in England after the protestant revolt in the sixteenth century to describe the Catholic Church. It is rarely used by the Catholic Church.