Rome had a church; in fact, the Book of Romans was written to them.
But the original church leadership was in Jerusalem. Read it in operation in Acts 15 with James as its spokesman.
The church then was known as "the church International" or catholic, meaning the same thing, but Rome was not exalted to leadership role until the Greek emperor Justinian (6Th century) signed a decree making Rome the leader of the churches.
Justinian was a Bible student and he later summoned the pope to Greece to answer for heresy. He imprisoned the pope for two years, thus making the statement that "governing authorities are appointed by God."
Now, having said that, the Greek church was merely part of the church that had headquarters Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, and Anexandria (Egypt). The real church in Rome fled to the Alps while the apostate church forced conversions (Revelation 12).
One can best tell what a church is today by studying what they were, but people think Rome has changed so God reminds us again in the Bible code: http://abiblecode.com
Same time. There was one Church, and they, over a few issues, split from each other. If you had to pick one, go with Catholicism, for the simple fact that before the split, that's what they, as one entity still, were called - Catholicism.
The Catholic Church The name roman was given to the Catholic Church By Henry the 8Th
Evodius was the first Bishop of Antioch a Catholic, and he is credited with being the first person to call the followers of Christ, "Christians", as shown in Acts 11:26. See Eusebius, book 3, chapter 22.HTTP://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm
Saint Ignatius (35-107), the second Bishop of Antioch wrote a letter to the Smyrneans in 107 A.D..
In this letter is recorded the first known use of the words "Catholic Church"...
Paragraph #8
"You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid." The first recorded use of the word is found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who was a young man during the time of the apostles and was the second bishop of Antioch following Peter, who went on to become bishop of Rome. Ignatius was immersed in the living traditions of the local church in Antioch, where the believers in Christ were first called Christians (cf. Acts 11:26). He was taught and ordained directly by the apostles. From the apostles Ignatius learned what the Church was?how it was to function, grow, and be governed.
History informs us that Peter was the bishop of Antioch at the time; in fact, Church Fathers claim that Ignatius was ordained by Peter himself. Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. He lived with or near them and was an understudy of these special apostles. Ignatius is known and revered as an authentic witness to the traditions and practice of the apostles.
In the existing documents that have come down to us, Ignatius is the first to use the word catholic in reference to the Church. On his way to Rome, under military escort to the Coliseum, where he would be devoured by lions for his faith, he wrote, "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8).
I fully expected your two cents but it is a tradition that Ignatius is the Child who sat on the lap of Jesus and he is mentioned in the Epistles under his i guess first name Theodora's.
I believe that they happened at the same time. At one time, they were together based on the Roman Empire. The Empire got too big for one man to be in charge so they established another seat for a co-emperor in Byzantium, which later became Constantinople, and now is Istanbul. It was one Church until 1054 when a Roman Catholic Bishop delivered a letter of excommunication to Patriarch Caerularius of Constantinople. I've read where it was a basic communication that lead to the Great Schism, as it's called, and an envoy from Rome insulted the Patriarch in Constantinople. There are been problems before this but were always rectified.
In the first few hundred years of Christianity, there was no Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church as we know it today...there was just one church of all believers. During this time four cities were the important centers of Christianity: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. Although the Roman church was highly respected, the churches in the East generally had more numbers and more authority than those of the West, (Jerusalem was where Jesus ministered, was crucified and resurrected and where the first church council was held, Antioch is where his follows were first called Christians and was also Paul's missionary base, etc.) These churches functioned as peers to each other, supported each other and held each other accountable The Eastern Orthodox schism in 1054 AD happened when the Bishop of Rome asserted himself as the supreme ruler over all of Christianity and that the other centers needed to subjugate themselves to Rome. This created the Western Rite (Roman) and the Eastern Rite (Greek) branches.
BTW, "Catholic" just means "Universal" and is how it was originally defined in the Apostle's Creed....It is more accurate to use "Roman Catholic" when referring to the specific Western rite denomination of Christians and "Catholic" as the general term for all universal believers in Jesus.
The Eastern Orthodox Church split from the Roman Catholic Church around 1050. This is known as the Great Schism.
It happened because, for a brief period of time, the capital of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople. Because of this, there arose a lot of cultural and linguistic differences. The Church in the east believed that because they had the political capital, they should have the religious capital as well, and thus began refusing to recognize the Roman papacy. There are actually very few theological differences.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, therefore, did not exist until the 11Th century, whereas the word "Catholic" described the church as early as 100, two-hundred years before the canon of the New Testament was fully established.
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches were one and the same until they separated from one another in 1054 mainly over the role of the Pope.
There are very few theological differences. The main difference is that the Orthodox Churches (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm) use the Byzantine Rite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04312d.htm) and the Catholic Church use the Roman or Latin Rite.
Another difference is the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, the original which the Orthodox follow is
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."
And the Catholic revision is:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
Pope John Paul II said of the Orthodox Churches in Orientale Lumen, "A particularly close link already binds us. We have almost everything in common."
For the entire document, see: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html
The correct answer is there basically the same age. It would be more correct to call the Church prior to the schism as the Orthodox Catholic Church since it would be correct to use both titles.
The Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch Jerusalem and latter Constantinople bore the title Patriarch as these were the largest and most important cities in the Christian world. Each had their own Liturgy and so fourth. After the fall of the western Roman empire the Patriarch of Rome started trying to strengthen his role in the Church since Rome had lost it's political and economic position. The Pope was recognized as the lead Patriarch and Constantinople was the second Patriarch when it was built so the fight was over what it meant to lead.
This rubbed the Patriarch of Constantinople as well as the emperor the wrong way and after a few centuries of fighting both the Eastern and Roman Church excommunicated each other. So we both make the claim we they caused it.
Roman is not a church. It's a rite. Like Byzantine or Syro-Malabar.
There are two branches to the church. Eastern and Western. Part of the Eastern church split due to doctrinal differences. Part of it remains with the Holy See.
The split began in the 800s and was final in the 1000s.
So since it is a split, you can't really say one came before the other as they were one body - fully functioning - for centuries.
"There are two branches to the church. Eastern and Western. Part of the Eastern church split due to doctrinal differences. Part of it remains with the Holy See."
No. The only Eastern Churches in communion with Rome broke off from the Orthodox Church long after the Schism. All the Roman Church was not in communion with any of the Eastern Churches after the Schism.
"The split began in the 800s and was final in the 1000s."
The growing division between East and West started, however, much earlier in the 4Th Century with Blessed Augustine of Hippo.
Neither of them came first. The Roman Church was not "created" in 1054, and neither was the Eastern Church. It was a split. The fact that neither Church came first, however, does not make them equally valid.
History says. The Eastern Orthodox Church split from the Roman Catholic Church around 1054. This is known as the Great Schism.
The Orthodox and Catholic Churches were one and the same until they separated from one another in 1054 mainly over the role of the Pope.
There is no historical record of an Orthodox Church until the 11Th Century.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, therefore, did not exist until the 11Th century, whereas the word "Catholic" described the church as early as 100, two-hundred years before the canon of the New Testament was fully established.
The Catholic church can both trace its heritage as well as its existence back that far, so it is historically the first.
Also, the Eastern Orthodox, although autonomous, still recognizes the catholic church as first and the primacy of Peter as the head of the Catholic religion.
There was only the Catholic Church which was composed of the Eastern/Asian branches and the Western Church until 1054 AD
Another point to ponder is this; how can Christ talk to His body when there are so many different one`s?
There can really be only one truth and this is that Christ did indeed place Peter at the head of His church on earth to govern with the other Apostles and that this church MUST continue until He(Christ) returns again.
The gates of Hell cannot and will not prevail against this true church but that does not mean that Hell would not try to, and try it has for the past 2,000yrs.
A further consideration needs to be looked at which is this, if Christ established ONE church then all others must be false and the counter Bibilcal allowance of Divorce and Remarriage is a sign of these false churches.
This is not to say that we should stuff this down the throats of others but still this correction is in order, it is not logical to split from the true church and claim unity with the Apostles and worse still to attack the true church as well.
When Jesus commanded His Apostles to preach the Good News He allowed them to do so by oral tradition, they had no Bible and so their oral tradition carried the same authority as the later written word, but without the Apostolic tradition we could not have the New Testament.
The dangers of private interpretation have become apparent and only the true church has the authority to interpret scripture, no wonder then that many who take it upon themselves to preach at the Catholic church do so with ill informed ideas and in arrogance actually attack the tradition of the holy Apostles themselves.
Finally as Protestants love to cling to the letter of the law regarding scripture perhaps they can find where it is written that Jesus would take back the Apostolic authority of Peter and the Apostles if they failed to be perfect every time and then explain why He sent the Holy Spirit in His infallibility to guide it until the end of the world!
Every Christian church possesses some of the truths revealed by our Lord but only the Catholic Church can trace its origins all the way back to Jesus and Saint Peter through the rite of ordination; the laying on of hands and passing on of episcopal responsibility and authority. Because only the Catholic Church can be traced all the way back to Jesus, only the Catholic Church can be said to possess all the revealed truth. After all, Jesus founded the Church, promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (which means that it would be perpetual and not teach error), and promised to be with it until the end of time. Not at the end of time, but continually until the end of time. Either the Catholic Church was and is the one true Church, or the Bible is wrong, or Jesus is a liar.
1) Both churches trace their origins directly back to the apostles and apostolic succession.
2) On the time line the Roman Catholic church was formed as a structured and political entity in the 4Th century partially thanks to Constantine getting all the differing churches together to hammer out some cohesion.
3) In the Orthodox view, the Assyrians and Orientals left the Orthodox Church in the first few centuries after Christ, and the Roman Catholics became the largest group to do so, as the result of the East-West Schism, traditionally dated in 1054.
Based on this one would have to say that the churches formed simultaneously.
The Roman Catholic Church was the first church established.
Christianity spread so rapidly because of the Roman Empire. The goal of the Empire was to make the religion of Christ the official religion of Europe. The Churches of the Middle E. were not called Orthodox until they broke away from the Popes ruling. Technically... Orthodox is just a secondary Catholic Church. Both practice the same. Orthodox just minus the Pope.
Orthodox and Catholic were one in the same Church before the Great Schism in 1054. Over time about 1000 years ago a few of the Rites of the Catholic Church broke away from orthodoxy with the Holy See (for the most part because of cultural differences between the East and West - not because of doctrine). These churches instead followed the Archbishop of Constantinople; and it is these Churches that are now known as the Orthodox.
Orthodox Christians worship in rites virtually the same as those of the Catholic Church (the rites that ARE in communion with the Holy See). The Catholic Church recognizes all of the Orthodox's sacraments as valid: including marriage, baptism, Eucharist, confirmation, holy orders, reconciliation, and anointing.
Pretty much the only different is in leadership. Catholicism is led by a hierarchy of bishops. The entire Church - all 23 Catholic Rites - are ultimately led by the Pope, and are under the governance of the Holy See.
The Orthodox Churches broke away from this leadership in 1054. Now each Church is led by a patriarch, their Rites are loosely associated with one another.
Since the Great Schism, several of the Eastern Rites (Orthodox) have migrated back to the Holy See. It is these Rites that make up the 22 Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.
See this website for a great explanation of everything about Rites, Churches, and the history of Catholicism and Orthodoxy:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
Did the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church come first?
