I'm not arguing about what you assume to be your own Church; at least you need to be open to dialogue and see if you not missing out issues. Okay, here are just snapshots to address some misconceptions, among whcih are the ideas that "all churches were  part of the Catholic Church" before the broke away some 451 AD, etc., etc. We've repeatedly observed that is not the case, and here are a few things to consider

"The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

~Lady~:

How can a schism occur if they were not initally a part of the Catholic church. You can only have a schism when you were once together.

Definition of a schism

schism  /ˈsɪzəm, ˈskɪz-/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [siz-uhm, skiz-]  Show IPA
–noun 1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties.
2. the parties so formed.
3. Ecclesiastical. a. a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.
b. the state of a sect or body formed by such division.
c. the offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division.

The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic

~Lady~:

Assyrian? When did Assyrian come into the picture? Are you confusing Assyrian for Armenian or are you hoping I won't see the difference? We were never talking about the Assyrian Church, tpiah did not post the assyrian church, he posted the ARMENIAN CHURCH.
Don't chage the topic.

Omenuko:

All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

Omenuko:

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church.

You obviously are too driven to defend Catholicism rather than looking objectively at what people are posting. Please go back and see the samples I gave earlier:

pilgrim.1:

Quote
"[size=14pt]The Assyrian church[/size] - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4499668.stm#iraq

~Lady~:

Oh miss pilgrim you are way too funny, when you can't provide any evidence you result to discredit the messenger. Talk about the topic o jare, provide evidence, and I did see your examples, your examples had nothing to do with what we're talking about.

~Lady~:

Pilgrim this is what you posted.

[size=13pt]You[/size] are not talking about the Armenian church that everyone is talking about. Where did [size=13pt]ASSYRIAN[/size] come from that [size=13pt]you[/size] are talking about?

pilgrim.1:

I'd like you to please start from there.

tpiah:

what part of Jewish Torah are you not getting?

My point is without the New Testament there'll still be plenty of churches, since the early Christians didnt have a new testament in their own bible. Neither did Jesus.

I'm not discrediting you, and if you are calmer you'd see you're the one too much in a haste to read issues objectively because you're trying to dragoon all churches under the Catholic umbrella.

When omenuko conjectured that all churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church, I raised the issue that they were not - and replied accordingly. You never for one moment calmed down to understand what was being discussed before assuming what you're didn't read. Please take some time to breathe and look at what people are saying, follow their sequence instead of being too hasty to reply.

~Lady~:

But even still, the bbc article was written in present times, it was written after the schism, therefore it would call the assyrian church a non-catholic church, and it will rightfully say it existed since the 2nd century. But what you fail to realise is that during that 2nd century when it was founded, it was a part of the Catholic church. Today the Assyrian church is not catholic, but was it catholic back in the day?

toneyb:

I asked you a question and you said I should please start from there.

Without the bible as it is today () Christianity would have not survived. There were so many letters and most people wrote what they felt was right and passed it as the writings or the words of the apostles. Most were very much at odds with each other and were really a source of discord and disharmony example the gospel of peter, judas, clement, book of enouch, revelation of peter, book of mary magdalene. book of mary etc. The catholics did a good job because the choose the books that agreed with their theology, preserved it and presented it to the world as the christian book of god. There was no christian book of god only the jewish book of god(hebrew bible). There were only different letters that were in circulation.The catholics made the christian book of god.

~Lady~:

Lol, now you can read my emotions. Please talk about the topic. If they weren't Catholic, prove that before the schism they weren't catholic.

~Lady~:

See how confused you are, I wasn't talking about Omenuko, it is Tpiah that I quoted. Or is it that you do not care to take the time to find the truth that automatically you think we're spewing rubbish?

toneyb:

I asked you a question and you said I should please start from there.

pilgrim.1:

I did, because obviously you idea of a "canon" is just linear.

tpiah:

is that what you believe? Especially the bolded.

Good luck to you then.

toneyb:

I don't think you really want to have any meaningful discussion you want to go off tangent as usual.

Please take some time and READ - READ the sequence of why I posted that following Omenuko's assertion earlier. Your hasty responses are becoming hysterical.

Please stop making unfounded statements. The BBC article did not trace the Assyrian Church to a Catholic origin in the 2nd century; and you could please calm down and see the following -

http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

You didn't follow what we were discussing before assuming that others are spewing rubbish. How do you just jump in and make absolutely no connection between what people are discussing before writing them off - what rationality does that display about the way you argue?

Mar Aprim the Assyrian, the representative of the Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., played a great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. That is the reason he is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church which declared Saint Aprim as the doctor of the Universal Church

In the fifth century, the Nestorian controversy concerning the unity of the divine and human nature in Christ had far reaching consequences. At this time, the Church of the East was not involved in this controversy. It was a theological dispute within the Roman Empire.

Omenuko:

The person who created this thread said, "Don't let the Catholic Faith Deter You From the Christian Faith."  What the originator fails to understand is that the Christian faith is the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Church is the original church.  The term 'Catholic' was the term the members of the early church used to distinguish between orthodox belief and heretical doctrine from pseudo-christian sects.  What the poster fails to understand is that the Catholic Church included all of the apostolic churches, such as the Roman/Latin, Russian, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian, [size=14pt]etc[/size].

Omenuko:

Afterward, the Greek (Eastern Orthodox) and Roman/Latin churches separated around 1054AD (although it was not a hard split).  All churches were at one point part of the Catholic Church.

Omenuko:

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough.  All of the churches I mentioned in my post (Armenian, Egyptian, Greek, and Ethiopian) were at one point or another part of the Catholic Church. I do agree with you that there were some churches (though quite small in number) that developed apart from the 'Catholic Church'.

pilgrim.1:

Okay, here are just snapshots to address some misconceptions, among which are the ideas that "all churches were  part of the Catholic Church" before the broke away some 451 AD, etc., etc. We've repeatedly observed that is not the case, and here are a few things to consider:

~Lady~:

Once again, it is not Omenuko, but tpiah. I was referring to tpiah.

~Lady~:

Madam I already know the history of the Nestorian church, no be today I study history. The Nestorians had a schsim, in order for this schism to occur they must have been a part of something. If the bbc article did not trace them to the Catholics, the bbc needs to do a better research because it lacks logic.

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the apellation “Nestorian, after the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.

source: Wikipedia

~Lady~:

Here's a link
http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_timeline.html
It was at the council of ephesus that they went into schism because of the nature of Jesus. They were Catholic before then, they were present at the other councils, therefore making them Catholics before their schism

~Lady~:
Oh I very well did, but if it will make u feel better sorry, now prove your assertions and use logic please.

~Lady~:

Just so we can be clear, I replied to tpiah, then you replied to me, then I replied to you, Omenuko was never in the picture as far as I was concerned. But anyway, prove your assertions.

~Lady~:

Pilgrim.1
I'm going to quote from your own source to show that they were Catholics before their schism.

Notice that they had a representative at the 1st council of Nicea, making them Catholic at that time.
This is your own source that I am using o.
http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

pilgrim.1:

And Omenuko has no right to discuss in this thread? What is so disturbing about discussing what Omenuko broached for consideration that you've not been calm to reason along with others? Why this repeated dismissive attitude?

It is clear that unbiased history does not make the 'Nestorian' Church a part of the Catholic Church - that is why you should not assume that the BBC "needs to do a better research because it lacks logic" - what logic? The logic of falsehood? Would it be 'logic' if they had stated what you had wanted to see by dragging the Nestorian Church into Catholic origin in the 2nd century? No - the BBC quite clearly and succinctly captured the essence of true and scholarly reports on the History of the Nestorian Church. The reason why Catholics typically react the way you did is not strange - because the Catholic Church has been trying ever so hard to discredit them on unfounded reasons:

[list][/list]

Why do Catholics (not all Catholics though) behave in such a manner - to seek a way of discrediting what does not follow their own ideology? I'm just wondering, because this whole drama would have been unnecessary if you'd calmed down and reasoned issues through and not being reactive unnecessarily.

You're the one trying ever so hard to "make them Catholics" - just because they were present at some councils? This is what the link says about Ephesus - "431 Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorius as a heretic" - and yet, the 'Nestorian Church' did not know itself by such a name, because it was a misnomer. The reason why they came to be known as such is partly due to Rome seeking persistently to discredit them for the reason that they held the view that Nestorius was not a heretic. More to the point was that this Church had its own See and were not under the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Any ideas about why the same link states that "School of the Persians in Edessa first closed by Romans" in just about the same period?

I doubt you "very well did", considering the way you kept charging full speed and yet missing the point. I just outlined it once again in my reply just above.

Please see my reply above.

____________________________________

Just because they were present at the Council of Nicea does not "make them Catholic" - that is simply laughable. Mar Aprim was the representative of the Assyrian Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., but it does not make the Assyrian Church a Roman Catholic church - rather, the Roman Catholic Church "recognized" his great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. Just being present at a Council does not in itself constitute "origin" of a Church from Catholicism.

faith69:

sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

faith69:
also somewhere ealier you said christianity preceded roman catholicism,please i would like you to educate me on when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom

Nestorianism is the doctrine that the two individual natures of Christ, the human and the divine, are joined in conjunction ("synapheia" rather than in hypostatic union.[1] The doctrine is identified with Nestorius (c. 386–c. 451), Archbishop of Constantinople. This view of Christ was condemned at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, and the conflict over this view led to the Nestorian schism, separating the Assyrian Church of the East from the churches adherent to the First Council of Ephesus, among them being the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the apellation “Nestorian, after the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical, political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.

You're the one trying ever so hard to "make them Catholics" - just because they were present at some councils? This is what the link says about Ephesus - "431 Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorius as a heretic" - and yet, the 'Nestorian Church' did not know itself by such a name, because it was a misnomer. The reason why they came to be known as such is partly due to Rome seeking persistently to discredit them for the reason that they held the view that Nestorius was not a heretic. More to the point was that this Church had its own See and were not under the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Any ideas about why the same link states that "School of the Persians in Edessa first closed by Romans" in just about the same period?

Just because they were present at the Council of Nicea does not "make them Catholic" - that is simply laughable. Mar Aprim was the representative of the Assyrian Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., but it does not make the Assyrian Church a Roman Catholic church - rather, the Roman Catholic Church "recognized" his great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. Just being present at a Council does not in itself constitute "origin" of a Church from Catholicism.

Omenuko:

@Pilgrim1,

The the Nestorian church was part of the Catholic Church.  This church was initially known as the Assyrian Church of the East and was later tiltled Nestorian after the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius.

Omenuko:
Pilgrim1, what is your definition of the Catholic Church?  You seem to be conflating the Catholic Church with the Church of Rome (aka the Roman Catholic Church).

faith69:

sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

Omenuko:

The quote above asserts that, 1) the Nestorian Church was previously known as the Assyrian Church of the East, 2) that it was in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, 3) this church was separated from its sister churches (i.e., Rome/Latin, Eastern/Greek, Oriental/Egypt), and 4) the Assyrian, Roman, Eastern, and Oriental Churches were, before the schism, part of one church (aka the Catholic Church).

Omenuko:

And how does the quote you provided from wikipedia prove that the Assyrian (Nestorian) church was not part of the Catholic Church (see below):

Omenuko:

What it does hint at is that there were political misgivings between the Assyrian Church and the Roman church.  It does not in any way say that the Assyrian church and the Roman church developed separately or where not in communion. . . .talk less of not being part of one church.

Omenuko:

From your logic, its as though the Anglican or Lutheran Churches waking up one day and saying they were never part of the Catholic Church, because they separated from Rome and were labeled Protestants.  Whether they (Anglican and Lutheran) like it or not they were part of the Catholic Church.  The situation the occurred between Catholic church and the Protestants churches (i.e., separating) can be likened to the situation between the Catholic Church (Rome, Greek, Egyptian) and the Assyrian or Nestorian Church.

Omenuko:

Pilgrim1, what you are saying doesn't make sense.  The Assyrian church was in communion with the churches of Rome, Constantinople, and Egypt.  The Roman/Latin church had administrative influence over most of western Europe and parts of north Africa.  The church of Constantinople had administrative influence over the Greek speaking areas of Europe and parts of the near middle east (including Assyria).  The Coptic/Egyptian Church had administrative influence over parts of north Africa, Ethiopia, and parts of the middle east.  The churches of Antioch and Jerusalem eventually came under the influence of Constantinople.  All of these churches (Rome, Constantinople, and Egypt) were part of the Catholic Church.  They had the same belief and doctrines and were in communion with one another.

Omenuko:

The very fact that they attended this council and participated is the very reason why they were Catholic.  No one is saying the Assyrian Church is part of the Roman Catholic church.  What we are saying is that the Assyrian Church, and the Roman Church were sisters churches within the Catholic Church.  The Assyrian Church was indeed part of the Catholic Church.

pilgrim.1:

@Omenuko,

The Assyrian Church was not "part of" the Catholic Church as a single denomination - we've been through this before and it's needless repeating the same thing like a broken record. You guys are reading things into the quotes and forcing the Assyrian Church into the 'Catholic Church'; whereas, the quotes often referred to do not lead to that inference.

No, I'm not - as could be seen, that idea often emerges in the minds of 'Catholics', as could be seen in faith69's earlier response. Let me quote faith69's direct response to my post earlier as regards how Catholics define 'Catholic Church'  -

[list][/list]

Just wondering: what makes everyone in any Council to automatically be 'Roman Catholic' (or even 'Catholic Church')? Is any quote so far from any source saying that everyone in any council had to be '[Roman] Catholic'? If this misconception keeps popping up from catholics themselves, is that my worry? The only thing I could do is take the ideas of Catholics themselves and discuss accordingly, so that we can move on and minimise confusion. To this end, I'd be glad to see you guys reading your own ideas into quotes that do not say what you want them to say.

It seems to me that you're leading on to a dilemma here. Could I just begin to ask questions instead of trying to point out quotes to you? I think probably that may be more helpful if you still fail to see the basic point here.

    1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

    2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

    3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

    4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

Perhaps these would help contextualize the discussion and then we can distinguish between terms and maintain a balance and a focus.

It all depends on what you mean by 'Catholic Church'.

What 'one church' do you mean? Please take the time to identify that 'one church' and let's talk about it, as it's not enough to keep repeating the same thing about 'Catholic Church' and mistaking it for something else midway.

I hear. Just bear that in mind as you explicate what you mean by 'Catholic Church'.

Being in communion is not the issue - there are several churches today and back in early history that were in communion but could not be said to be "part of" one vague term. Please identify the term 'Catholic Church' and then we can mirror your assertions against it.

I knew the words in bold is what is controlling the mindset of most Catholics - especially naija Catholics. Just because someone attended a council automatically makes that person a Catholic, kwo? No wahala, please follow through with the simple oft-repeated request above and we can develop your ideas consequently.

Shalom.

Alexandrian liturgical tradition
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, (163,849), Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church[1] (metropolia): Addis Ababa, (208,093), Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church[2] (patriarchate): Bkerke, (3,105,278), Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church[3] (patriarchate): Beirut,(131,692), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[4] (major archiepiscopate): Trivandrum, (412,640), India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[5] (patriarchate): Beirut, (375,182), Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[6] (patriarchate): Baghdad, (418,194), Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Church[7] (major archiepiscopate): Ernakulam, (3,902,089), India, Middle East, Europe and America (date disputed)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (3,510), Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (10,000), Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[8] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia,(10,107), Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci[9] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur (21,480) + (22,653), Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[10] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, (2,325), Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church[11] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, (290,000), Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (63,240), Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, (11,491), Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[12] (patriarchate): Damascus, (1,346,635), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic[13] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, (776,529) Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[14]: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[15] (a sui juris metropolia[16], an eparchy[17], and an apostolic exarchate[18]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, (594,465), United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, (243,335), Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[19] (major archiepiscopate): Kyiv, (4,223,425), Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

Omenuko:

Lady posted the below a while back. It basically is a list of eastern catholic churches and rites. These churches, along with the Latin/Roman Church, make up the Catholic Church. We do not call them different denominations; we call them different traditions or rites. Basically, the Catholic church consists of sister churches; same faith, same belief, and in communion with the Pope. Hopefully, Lady and others can help define what is meant by the Catholic Church. I'm busy now and will respond later.

faith69:

sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

faith69:

also somewhere ealier you said christianity preceded roman catholicism,please i would like you to educate me on when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom

pilgrim.1:

@faith69,

I know your quote has appeared several times in my replies - there's a reason why I thus used it to point out something vital to others I was responding to. However, as soon as I have answers to my request, then I'll answer your question about "when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom". Take care.

faith69:

I can't wait to hear from you on how and when Roman catholicism was created

folami86:

The Catholics didn't write the Bible! However, they were the ones responsible for passing on the good news to future generations. The scriptures already existed prior to the council of Nicea.

Check this out
www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea