T
TheIttyBitty
Guest
I’m not Folks, I’m new here as well. But you have not really handled the initial post well, so I don’t have time (re: look at my recent posts, I simply don’t have that kind of time, and thanks if you do.)
- Status
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Hello again, @Glenn. I’ll try and pick up where we left off a few hours ago. Please see if you agree with the following reasoning.
Either the Catholic Church as we know it today is the same church that Jesus founded, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there are basically two ways in which the continuity might have been lost. It was either a gradual process, spread out over maybe a century or more, or it was a sudden calamitous event. We could label them the slow way and the quick way.
The slow way.— It was a gradual, almost imperceptible movement, year after year, in which the church drifted away from its New Testament configuration, as set out most clearly in Paul’s letters. This happened partly under the influence of Greek philosophy, partly also by the constant exposure to pagan religion, leaving detectable traces of syncretism, as well as wear and tear inflicted by the 250 years of almost constant persecution under most or all of the Roman emperors from Nero onward, that only ended with the accession of Constantine.
The quick way.— At some crucial moment a crisis occurred that had the effect of snapping the chain. Jesus’ church was effectively destroyed and a different kind of church arose to take its place. There were several turning points in the Church’s history that might possibly be seen in that light. One example is the fire of Rome in 64, followed by the martyrdom of Peter and Paul and the emergence of Linus as the new bishop of Rome. Another example might be the so-called “Constantinian shift” and the Council of Nicaea.
Are we in agreement so far?
Either the Catholic Church as we know it today is the same church that Jesus founded, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then there are basically two ways in which the continuity might have been lost. It was either a gradual process, spread out over maybe a century or more, or it was a sudden calamitous event. We could label them the slow way and the quick way.
The slow way.— It was a gradual, almost imperceptible movement, year after year, in which the church drifted away from its New Testament configuration, as set out most clearly in Paul’s letters. This happened partly under the influence of Greek philosophy, partly also by the constant exposure to pagan religion, leaving detectable traces of syncretism, as well as wear and tear inflicted by the 250 years of almost constant persecution under most or all of the Roman emperors from Nero onward, that only ended with the accession of Constantine.
The quick way.— At some crucial moment a crisis occurred that had the effect of snapping the chain. Jesus’ church was effectively destroyed and a different kind of church arose to take its place. There were several turning points in the Church’s history that might possibly be seen in that light. One example is the fire of Rome in 64, followed by the martyrdom of Peter and Paul and the emergence of Linus as the new bishop of Rome. Another example might be the so-called “Constantinian shift” and the Council of Nicaea.
Are we in agreement so far?
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
'‘Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.’ - St Ignatius of Antioch, AD 107
A
anon91549587
Guest
Could you give as a parallel context and example of what you deem as real evidence?
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Perhaps you might want to think how you respond to people who are trying to respond to you.
It’s a two-way street.
V
VeryBlessed
Guest
I know you’ve got that good kind of restlessness in you. I’m glad you’re asking questions, digging into assumptions. As you dig into the ECF, I hope you’ll keep in mind, that they might not be trying to answer the question that you are asking right now in this day and age. They lived before the reformation, there was just one church, they may not spend much time defending the claim of the primacy of one church being the true church against the competing claims of other Christian churches. That situation is unique to our age, perhaps unimaginable to them.
I know this is not what you asked for, but for me, the most compelling evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true church is in John chapter 17, just before the cross, his final request as it were, when Jesus prayed that his followers be one over and over. And yet Christendom today is wildly divided. How is the average believer supposed to know which church is the most true church? It’s humanly impossible to explore them all. And Jesus also said the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. To me this means that every age must’ve had an authentic true visible church. And the only church that has been there throughout every age since the resurrection, is the Catholic Church.
Keep digging. You may find gold…
I know this is not what you asked for, but for me, the most compelling evidence that the Catholic Church is the one true church is in John chapter 17, just before the cross, his final request as it were, when Jesus prayed that his followers be one over and over. And yet Christendom today is wildly divided. How is the average believer supposed to know which church is the most true church? It’s humanly impossible to explore them all. And Jesus also said the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth. To me this means that every age must’ve had an authentic true visible church. And the only church that has been there throughout every age since the resurrection, is the Catholic Church.
Keep digging. You may find gold…
G
Glenn
Guest
Yes, I can see that.
G
Glenn
Guest
Yes, this is a strong argument in favor of one Church. And that is certainly the type of answer I am looking for.
M
Montrose
Guest
Read the early church fathers and then if you have questions after that you can ask us.
https://www.ccel.org/fathers
M
Montrose
Guest
You should also read the books and watch the videos of Steve Ray who was a former Baptist. By careful study of the early Church fathers he was convinced the Catholic Church was the one true Church established by Christ and he and his wife converted to the Catholic faith.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Alright. I will try to use some logical implications to reason and provide some quotes and sources later on.
So, first thing- Saint Paul in the Bible says “Church is Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says “I am Truth, Way and Life”. Now those two are quite linked. Lord Jesus did establish the Church so it may last, be ever-pure and never fall into heresy. So we are looking for institutions which can claim they existed since roughly 33 AD (though there are miscalculations on when did Crucifixion actually happen).
This disqualifies all institutions which are Protestant in nature. Technically even Anglicans because while they claim they have always been English Church, they did at one point hold Papal Primacy and core beliefs of Catholicism which shows us that Anglican Church is different Church than it was before Reformation.
So this leaves us with so-called “Apostolic Churches”. Those are Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Church of the East and perhaps some others. Let us examine what are their breaking points.
Church of the East, while pre-dating Council of Ephesus, actually had disputes with mainline Christianity of Roman Empire because there was disagreement over whether Council of Ephesus was correct.
Oriental Orthodoxy had quite the misunderstanding during Council of Chalcedon- it was actually just miss-translation that split mainline Christianity of Roman Empire and Oriental Orthodoxy. However, it is worth to note that while theology was most certainly not behind this Schism, authority was. Coptic Pope controlled one Council and when others did not accept it, he started excommunicating other Patriarchs left and right. “…in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour”, in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon, “and excommunicated the Pope (of Rome) himself”.
So, first thing- Saint Paul in the Bible says “Church is Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says “I am Truth, Way and Life”. Now those two are quite linked. Lord Jesus did establish the Church so it may last, be ever-pure and never fall into heresy. So we are looking for institutions which can claim they existed since roughly 33 AD (though there are miscalculations on when did Crucifixion actually happen).
This disqualifies all institutions which are Protestant in nature. Technically even Anglicans because while they claim they have always been English Church, they did at one point hold Papal Primacy and core beliefs of Catholicism which shows us that Anglican Church is different Church than it was before Reformation.
So this leaves us with so-called “Apostolic Churches”. Those are Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Church of the East and perhaps some others. Let us examine what are their breaking points.
Church of the East, while pre-dating Council of Ephesus, actually had disputes with mainline Christianity of Roman Empire because there was disagreement over whether Council of Ephesus was correct.
Oriental Orthodoxy had quite the misunderstanding during Council of Chalcedon- it was actually just miss-translation that split mainline Christianity of Roman Empire and Oriental Orthodoxy. However, it is worth to note that while theology was most certainly not behind this Schism, authority was. Coptic Pope controlled one Council and when others did not accept it, he started excommunicating other Patriarchs left and right. “…in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour”, in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon, “and excommunicated the Pope (of Rome) himself”.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity gradually split on mainly two things- Filioque and Papal Authority. While Orthodoxy, and East at large, have believed in Filioque as this article says, problem came when one Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Ignatius, was deposed because he denied communion to important unrepentant noble. Emperor of Eastern Roman Empire deposed Ignatius and he asked Pope of Rome to help. Pope supported Ignatius while Emperor appointed Photius (uncanonically, because it was forbidden for one to become Bishop so quickly). Patriarch Photius knew Rome is against him so he started writing letters against Roman Church and her practices- and this is first time that someone in the East says that “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son alone”. Photius even militarily invaded Bulgarians who accepted Latin Christianity and force-converted them to Greek Christianity. Anyhow, after everything was resolved Ignatius returned to be Patriarch and after his death, Photius was Patriarch again. Thus, anti-Roman party of Clergy formed in Constantinople.
This culminated into Great Schism later on.
When Apostle Thomas does not believe in resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, he is scolded by our Lord. Why? Because faith requires certainty. How can we gain certainty? Which Council was correct? Oriental Orthodoxy held Council that excommunicated Orthodox-Catholic Christianity. Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Christianity had pretty rough Schism to even p(name removed by moderator)oint a date of actual Schism and Church of the East was excommunicated by Council too. How can one p(name removed by moderator)oint which is true without needing to be expert theologian? Answer is simple…
“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will built my Church”… “tend (govern) my lambs”… Simon the Apostle was chosen to lead and Christ prayed that “[Peter’s] faith will not fail”. Undisputed Councils have one thing in common- they have been accepted by Pope. So how can we deal with Papal Infallibity and Primacy in this context?
Papal Infallibility was professed very early in history… but also quite later. During Great Schism’s official point (though people didn’t even realize they are in Schism until much, much later), one Georgian Monk who is now Eastern Orthodox Saint, traveled to Constantinople to talk to Emperor of Eastern Roman Empire and Patriarch because he wanted to assert independence of Georgian Church. He treated them with utmost respect and humility. When he heard from them that they Schismed from Rome, he warned them and professed inerrancy (infallibility) of Roman Church. This monk from Georgia who had no Latin relations, no motives to invent a new doctrine at all, actually professed Papal Infallibility around 1060.
This culminated into Great Schism later on.
When Apostle Thomas does not believe in resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, he is scolded by our Lord. Why? Because faith requires certainty. How can we gain certainty? Which Council was correct? Oriental Orthodoxy held Council that excommunicated Orthodox-Catholic Christianity. Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Christianity had pretty rough Schism to even p(name removed by moderator)oint a date of actual Schism and Church of the East was excommunicated by Council too. How can one p(name removed by moderator)oint which is true without needing to be expert theologian? Answer is simple…
“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will built my Church”… “tend (govern) my lambs”… Simon the Apostle was chosen to lead and Christ prayed that “[Peter’s] faith will not fail”. Undisputed Councils have one thing in common- they have been accepted by Pope. So how can we deal with Papal Infallibity and Primacy in this context?
Papal Infallibility was professed very early in history… but also quite later. During Great Schism’s official point (though people didn’t even realize they are in Schism until much, much later), one Georgian Monk who is now Eastern Orthodox Saint, traveled to Constantinople to talk to Emperor of Eastern Roman Empire and Patriarch because he wanted to assert independence of Georgian Church. He treated them with utmost respect and humility. When he heard from them that they Schismed from Rome, he warned them and professed inerrancy (infallibility) of Roman Church. This monk from Georgia who had no Latin relations, no motives to invent a new doctrine at all, actually professed Papal Infallibility around 1060.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
During Crusades, Latin Christians encountered strange “Arabic Christians”. They were Maronites. They were divided from mainline Christianity, well before Great Schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Thanks to Muslim conquest, they hardly knew what was happening outside. When Crusaders talked to them, Maronites declared their loyalty to Rome. Maronites are Eastern Church that was never in Schism from Latin Church.
For other and actual quotes (above parts are only documented, we don’t know exact quotes), check this article.
Now one could say that Pope did not hold direct power over entire Church always, and that Church was less centralized. That is true. Communication between Christians was hard during times of persecution, but even later on it was not as easy as it is today. Also, during middle ages, fact that Latin Church was so large in opposition to small Eastern Churches that remained Catholic (Maronites being prime example) largely contributed to centralization to Rome. Suddenly, everything important happened in Rome and independence of other Patriarchates was administratively insufficient. This was of course a mistake done by medieval Church, but it is not a thing of dogma. Past Popes have tried fixing this administrative issue and they are on great path of unity through mutual love and mutual faith and visible communion with Rome- not through total subservience to Latin Church.
Pope St. Gregory defines Papal Authority as following: “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.”
(Lib. ix., Ep. 59)
This is how Papal Infallibility works. Bishops are quite equal with respect to their administrative roles (Patriarch has direct power over other Bishops under him etc), but if need arises, for good of the Souls and Universal (Catholic) Church, Pope of Rome, successor of Apostles Peter whose faith was promised not to fail, upon whom Church has been built and who was told to “tend (govern) [Christ’s] lambs”, can intervene and exercise his supreme authority.
Outside this, Council of Chalcedon says that any Church Trial held anywhere can be re-judged by Rome and Council of Sardica claims that even something already re-judged in Constantinople can be re-judged in Rome.
For other and actual quotes (above parts are only documented, we don’t know exact quotes), check this article.
Now one could say that Pope did not hold direct power over entire Church always, and that Church was less centralized. That is true. Communication between Christians was hard during times of persecution, but even later on it was not as easy as it is today. Also, during middle ages, fact that Latin Church was so large in opposition to small Eastern Churches that remained Catholic (Maronites being prime example) largely contributed to centralization to Rome. Suddenly, everything important happened in Rome and independence of other Patriarchates was administratively insufficient. This was of course a mistake done by medieval Church, but it is not a thing of dogma. Past Popes have tried fixing this administrative issue and they are on great path of unity through mutual love and mutual faith and visible communion with Rome- not through total subservience to Latin Church.
Pope St. Gregory defines Papal Authority as following: “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.”
(Lib. ix., Ep. 59)
This is how Papal Infallibility works. Bishops are quite equal with respect to their administrative roles (Patriarch has direct power over other Bishops under him etc), but if need arises, for good of the Souls and Universal (Catholic) Church, Pope of Rome, successor of Apostles Peter whose faith was promised not to fail, upon whom Church has been built and who was told to “tend (govern) [Christ’s] lambs”, can intervene and exercise his supreme authority.
Outside this, Council of Chalcedon says that any Church Trial held anywhere can be re-judged by Rome and Council of Sardica claims that even something already re-judged in Constantinople can be re-judged in Rome.
Last edited:
G
Glenn
Guest
Thanks. Great history lesson. I’ll read the articles you linked in. Is there a single source for everything that you mentioned, or did you gather it from multiple sources?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
You’re welcome. Unfortunately no, it wasn’t a single source. I am quite interested in history so this is something I learned over years. Most of stuff should be google-able and if you can’t find anything, let me know I’ll search for the source.
By the way name of Georgian Monk I mentioned is “Saint George the Hagiorite”… I figured I didn’t provide his name so that would be hard to find
@Glenn, I’m very sorry if I made you feel unwelcome, and I apologize.
I’m genuinely trying to help, but that’s not easy if we don’t ascribe the same meaning to the same words. I get what you mean now, and what your question is.
I’ll try to get back later with content actually relevant to your question – but once again, please accept my apologies if I hurt you.
I’m genuinely trying to help, but that’s not easy if we don’t ascribe the same meaning to the same words. I get what you mean now, and what your question is.
I’ll try to get back later with content actually relevant to your question – but once again, please accept my apologies if I hurt you.
G
Glenn
Guest
Thank you. I think you have honestly been trying to help. I understand that some may have been jaded by previous inquirers who want to argue. But sometimes, people are just trying to hash out their thoughts, and they really want someone to logically refute them. I don’t believe we can easily discern others’ intentions, so it is best to assume that they are sincere in their questions.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If you read other threads on the forum, you’ll see that there are many threads where we “respond to visitors”.
The reason we aren’t “calling each other out” on here is that, as several people explained to you, you came off as challenging and as rejecting good answers.
Now that you have repeatedly complained about the responses you got, it puts people off from helping you further.
If you are going to continue on here, please stop with criticizing the forum and the people who post. If someone seems to have the wrong idea, respond to them kindly rather than “Hmph, is this how you treat visitors?”
It’s like you walked into a party, came off as rude and then complained that everybody didn’t kindly welcome you and called everyone mean and unfriendly.
When 10 people are all reacting to you in a similar manner, it may be time to look in the mirror, that’s all I’m saying.
I made this post instead of flagging you because you seem to be posting in good faith but at the same time you don’t seem to understand how you came across.
I’ll let it drop now and hopefully you can find what you’re looking for from other posters, probably those who are converts as they seem to understand your question the best. God bless.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Thank you, @Glenn. So far so good. This approach seems to be working. Let’s carry on focusing on the historical developments.
One or two Protestants I know from other websites attach great importance to the “Constantinian shift,” which they see as, basically, a wrong turning taken by Pope Sylvester that effectively put an end to what they call “New Testament Christianity” or “the New Testament church.” Could the Constantinian shift perhaps be the hypothetical discontinuity that is causing you concern?
The shift is conventionally defined as, “first and foremost, what happens to the church when worldly power is used to accomplish what God has given his people to do without such power.” I’m not sure who wrote that, but it was probably one or other of the three American academics who have written extensively on the subject: Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder, and Cornel West.
Let us suppose for a moment that this is, in fact, your concern. If so, it would mean we no longer need to search for any historical event that occurred before 312, the year in which Constantine became sole emperor, or after 337, the year of his death. What do you think? Are we on the right track?
Last edited:
G
Glenn
Guest
Whew! A lot to dig through…
I have been reading Chesterton, Pope Benedict, Aquinas, and Augustine, all quite wonderful, but nothing specifically in regard to this particular question of one true Church.
But I also just finished reading Four Witnesses by Rob Bennett. What piqued my interest in this question was a quote from Irenaeus, as follows:
“…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has its tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”
Irenaeus makes two related statements that I wonder about. First, he refers to the Church at Rome as “the greatest and most ancient Church known to all.” My specific question here is what he meant by “most ancient Church.” My understanding is that the most ancient Church would have been considered the Church in Jerusalem.
The second related statement he makes is in regard to Rome’s “superior origin.” Here again, I think back to the Church in Jerusalem, where Peter was also a leader, apparently along with James.
I assume that Irenaeus believed the Church in Jerusalem to be the most ancient Church–although I’m not sure what the state of that Church was after the destruction of 70 AD. So how is he using the terms “greatest and most ancient” and “superior origin”? Also, since Peter and Paul founded other Churches, how does their founding of the Church in Rome make it preeminent?
Again, I’m not trying to debate what Irenaeus said, I’m just trying to understand it. I think he is saying something very relevant and special, but not living in his day, I just don’t what that is.
- Status