church history

[henrikhank]

Hi!
Please give me the expert view on this.
I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. I did read about church history in school but I still don’t know what to answer him. What would be a good answer?
He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

 

[Gorgias]

Hi!
Please give me the expert view on this.
I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. I did read about church history in school but I still don’t know what to answer him. What would be a good answer?

A good answer? How about asking him to read up on history?

I think it would be more reasonable to assert that the secular leaders in Catholic nations and the secular leaders in Orthodox nations can be compared, with respect to ‘bloody histories’, inasmuch as they were the ones who had the armies, not the Churches themselves. If he wants to make the case that the reasons for differences in violence are based in the identity of the particular church, however, he’s going to have to make the case for that argument. After all, even if he can show a correlation between church and secular violence, “correlation does not imply causation.”

He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

Literally, by showing him a history book. The Christian Church predated Constantine by some 300 years. There’s plenty of documentation of the interactions between the Church and pre-Constantine Rome.

To say “Constantine founded the Catholic Church” is like saying “Abraham Lincoln founded the United States of America.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church.

I don’t know how to measure the “bloodiness” of history (by ounces of blood???). But suppose this were true. What would it prove? And what would it prove about Buddhists (very peaceful people)?

He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 312, ending religious persecution in the Roman Empire. He called for the first Ecumenical Council (Nicea) a few years later.

You could start by showing the guy this ten-volume hardcover collection of the writings of the Early Church Fathers all written before Nicea.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gNF6gFDAL.SY265_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

We cite these same Fathers on this Forum all of the time. Some theologians spend their lives specializing in the study of these Fathers.

 

[dmar198]

I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. … What would be a good answer?

I think there are several options you could take in answering this objection. First, I would ask your friend for a clarification: tell him that the Church’s “bloody history” calls to mind things like the inquisitions and the crusades, and ask him if that is what he is referring to, or if it’s something more. There are lots of good apologetics resources out there about the inquisitions and the crusades that you could offer him. If you don’t already know where to find them, we can help you locate some of those resources. Just ask.

Find out if he is thinking of something beyond just the crusades and inquisitions. If that is all he is referring to, you might make a response similar to this: “If I’m understanding you correctly, you mean that the eastern churches were less supportive of violence than the western churches were. Is that what you mean? Because I think the historical record shows something else. In times of war, the eastern wars and the western wars were very comparable. The level of Church support was comparable too: both the east and the west had their priests bless the warriors and occasionally call people to battle using religious rhetoric. The purpose of their wars were comparable too: both the east and the west fought against Muslim invaders, but sometimes, unfortunately, both fought against other Christian lands. Regarding the inquisitions, both the east and the west had comparable penalties for heresy, including, in certain circumstances, death. When the western churches investigated people for heresy, they called it an inquisition, and certain wars were called crusades, but the actual procedures were very similar in both the east and the west. At least, that is my understanding. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you; in what way do you mean the Eastern Orthodox have less of a bloody history?”

You can help your friend put down any defensive barriers he might be putting up by presenting your opinions charitably and asking for his (name removed by moderator)ut and clarification.

He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?

There are several ways you can answer this objection.

One simple way is to ask: if the Catholic Church was created in the time of Constantine, where did the original church go? Did it die out or not? If it died out, that contradicts what Jesus said: the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church. Matt. 16:18. If it survived, where was it? Can he point to any “true Christians” between Constantine and his own church? If they were in hiding, how come they never spoke out? Doesn’t the Bible say to proclaim the truth from the rooftops? We know that none of today’s non-Catholic groups existed in that time because the Catholic Church wrote in detail about all the heretical groups they encountered, and no modern non-Catholic church has anyone like them in the historical record. The theory that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, and that any modern group is the true Christianity that Jesus started, contradicts Jesus’ own words and the record of history: Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and history shows us that no modern non-Catholic church existed in the historical record. And they could not simply be in hiding because the Bible says to proclaim the truth from the rooftops, and therefore the Catholic Church would have known about them.

So that’s one way to deal with this claim. But there is another: if your friend really believes that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, you can put this claim to a simple test. It is obvious that there was Some kind of church before Constantine was even born. We have writings from Church leaders both before him and after him. So, let’s compare the two groups: if the Church leaders before Constantine have the same doctrines and disciplines as the Church leaders after Constantine, then we have shown that Constantine did not found the Church. But if the Church Fathers after Constantine have different doctrines and disciplines than the Church Fathers before them, then something different was created in that time. That makes everything testable: just compare the Church Fathers before Constantine and after Constantine to see if the Church was the same or different.

Ask your friend if he thinks that is a reasonable test. Then use the tools we have available in the Church today to study the writings of the Church Fathers. To get you started, here are two helpful links:

The Writings of the Church Fathers
newadvent.org/fathers

Selections from the Church Fathers on over 65 Apologetics Topics
historyandapologetics.com/p/church-fathers.html

Please let me know if that helps. God bless!

 

[JohnR77]

Hi!
…
He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

Vague accusations are more difficult to refute. I suggest you ask him to explain how he knows the above claim.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t know how to measure the “bloodiness” of history (by ounces of blood???). But suppose this were true. What would it prove?

This is my sentiment. Can the claimant provide the total quantity of blood in question from all measured parties? And even as a figure of speech, what is the quantification for said violence? As well, the truth and ounces of spilled blood are not co-relative concepts. It’s quite perverted to think so. Even if we look at the apostles, Peter chopped some guy’s ear off. Does that signal that Christianity is false since Christ appointed him a primary Apostle? Of course not. Christ is our foundation. We needn’t scruple about violent periods in history this way or that.

 

[Spelf]

Our Orthodox brothers were equally as bloody as we were in terms of warfare by national leaders - it just so happened they were all systematically destroyed by the Turks (save Russia) and we were not, so we had several additional centuries of fighting to do (some of which was on their behalf, even going as far back as the First Crusade).

 

[epostle]

Karl Marx was responsible for the deaths of 70 million people; he came from a Jewish family. Has anyone held Judaism accountable for that reason? DUH!

 

[Rohzek]

Hi!
Please give me the expert view on this.
I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. I did read about church history in school but I still don’t know what to answer him. What would be a good answer?
He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

I’m not big on tallying up the deaths caused by religions or denominations. However, I can suggest looking some stuff up to help you on this matter. I suggest reading up on Byzantine policies regarding the Oriental Orthodox. Additionally, look up their treatment of the Bogimils and the Paulicians. As for a more modern history, you can read upon the wars resulting from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. I really can’t think of specific books on this matter. However, one that details about the Bogimils and the Paulicians is the following:

Runciman, Steven. The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy. Cambridge University Press, 1947. Reprinted 1960.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi!
Please give me the expert view on this.
I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. I did read about church history in school but I still don’t know what to answer him. What would be a good answer?
He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

Start by showing him that Christians were referring to the Catholic Church two centuries before Constantine:

Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

 

[Randy_Carson]

In addition to Ignatius of Antioch, we have this evidence:

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.” (Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, [A.D. 200]).

Clement of Alexandria

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).

“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”

Cyprian of Carthage

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5 [A.D. 251]).

“The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone except in the church.” (Letter 61 [AD 250]).

“Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).

St. Victorinus

“The Catholic church is one.” (Against Arius [AD 280]).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hi!
Please give me the expert view on this.
I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. I did read about church history in school but I still don’t know what to answer him. What would be a good answer?
He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

The question might be asked why Constantine would “found” the Church and later become sympathetic to Arianism. He wasn’t baptized until his deathbed by an Arian bishop – a heretical bishop – Eusebius of Nicomedia a supporter of Arius at the Council of Nicea. It might also be asked where those 300 + bishops of the Catholic Church at the Council came from since many of them were mamed and scarred from the Diocletian persecutions against the Church from well before Constantine’s time. Did Constantine install them before he came to power at a time before he was actually born?

At least two good histories from the time exist.

One by Sozomen

newadvent.org/fathers/2602.htm

and one by Socrates Scholasticus

newadvent.org/fathers/2601.htm

Both give detailed accounts of the life of Constantine and how he influenced the Church.

The Canons, Creed and Synodal Decree from the Council of Nicaea are also available.

None of these source documents support in any way the false contention that Constantine founded the Church.

The newly released historical novel The Apostasy That Wasn’t by Rod Bennett is a solid treatment of the events surrounding the Council and the life of Constantine.

 

[steve_b]

Hi!
Please give me the expert view on this.
I had a friend, who was born into the Catholic Church, telling me that the Eastern Orthodox had less of a bloody history than the Catholic Church. I did read about church history in school but I still don’t know what to answer him. What would be a good answer?

Here’s one example

The Orthodox always blame the Crusaders (i.e. the Catholic Church) for the sack of Constantinople. When Orthodox and Catholics talk, the Orthodox practically have that episode of Constantinople on speed dial to throw at Catholics. They show they have a selective memory on history, and a problem of proportion when it comes to judging their bloody history 22 years earlier

open the following #481 and also the 2 internal links in that link

Kallistos Ware, an Orthodox bishop and scholar, contributes to that internal link on the history that happened just 22 yrs prior in Constantinople, by the Byzantines against the Latins.
h:

He also said that the Catholic Church was founded by constatine. How do I answer him? How can I prove that he’s wrong?"

The “Catholic Church” has been here “in writing” properly referenced, since the 1st century #34

Ask your friend

to give you the first time “in writing” properly referenced, where “Orthodox Church” appears in history or in Church documents

 

[Gorgias]

Our Orthodox brothers were equally as bloody as we were in terms of warfare by national leaders

This is precisely my point: ‘national leaders who happen to be Orthodox’ isn’t the same thing as ‘the Orthodox Church’; nor is ‘national leaders who happen to be Catholic’ the same as ‘the Catholic Church’.

The OP’s friend’s point never even gets off the ground.

 

[Genesis315]

The Justinian Code, which lasted longer in the East than the West, proscribed death for heretics. Also, there are things like the Massacre of the Latins:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

I don’t say this to bash our separated brethren, but simply to show we are all tainted by original sin and we all have our problems. These can’t really serve as a basis for deciding which is Christ’s one Church.

 

[Eruorto]

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

Oh, man, I’ve been looking for something like this. I’ve gotten the “‘catholic’ meant something different in the early Church. It wasn’t used the same way as the modern Catholic Church uses it” thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Oh, man, I’ve been looking for something like this. I’ve gotten the “‘catholic’ meant something different in the early Church. It wasn’t used the same way as the modern Catholic Church uses it” thing.

:tiphat:

 

[epostle]

….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

“So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.” [Acts 9:31 RSV]

There the words “church throughout all” is translated from the Greek words “Ecclesia kata holis” But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church.