In what order did each church appear?

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Paul wrote twice to the Corinthians, about divisions, and to the Galatians as well. Then Clement of Rome wrote the Corinthians about their sedition warning them as Paul did, they are in serious danger. It seems it’s the East who had problems right from the get go regarding division. Where as Paul complements the Romans for their obedience to faith with regards to unity of faith.

Saint Paul finishes his epistle to the Christians of Rome with a warning against the false teachers who were among them. It was obviously a problem since he gives it prominence by making it the final message which he sends them.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Which proves nothing!!

In Saint Clement’s day lower case letters just did not exist. So he wrote everything like this: I CLEMENT WROTE EVERYTHING LIKE THIS. I DON’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU MEAN BY LOWER CASE LETTERS. I AM AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WHO HOLDS THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Capitalizing everything proves nothing.

Greek and Latin scholars who translated the original texts, who understand history as well show, that once case sensitive understanding of words is available, the proper context of the text, and proper understanding of words is made clear. Proper writing, and understanding someone’s writing properly, involves the understanding of verbs, adverbs, adjectives, nouns, pronouns etc, which means identifying proper names as well.

You’re using [o]rthodox as if it is [O]rthodox. That’s not how the translators translated the texts you gave.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Saint Paul finishes his epistle to the Christians of Rome with a warning against the false teachers who were among them. It was obviously a problem since he gives it prominence by making it the final message which he sends them.

Look at it closer.

1. Paul has already been through the East by the time he writes and visits the Church in Rome.
2. That means he’s already written his letters to the Corinthians and Galatians concerning division. Which BTW, applies to everyone, not just those 2…
3. Paul complements the Romans on their obedience of faith which included their unity. Otherwise why would Paul make the point in his opening and closing remarks to the Romans that it is their obedience of faith which has been reported all over the world [Rm 1:5…; 16:17…] He’s using the Church of Rome as an example to the
   others.
4. Paul’s closing remarks to the Church of Rome:

**17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions **and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. [Rm 16:17…]

5. Paul complements the Romans for their unity, and urging them to keep away from those who cause division. Why? He says it’s evil for one, but most of all, division carries a stiff penalty. As Paul warned the Galatians, those who divide and dissent, and continue to live like that will not inherit the kingdom of God**. [Gal 5:19…] **

---

6. 30 years after Paul writes this, Clement of Rome writes his letter to the Corinthians warning them of their sedition and that they are in serious danger if they don’t stop. What danger? The same danger Paul warns about in Galatians. Division is serious.
7. Since Satan can’t prevail against the Church Jesus builds on Peter, Paul’s parting words to Rome is a reminder to them, "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JackmanUSC:

well since Christ appointed Peter his head apostle to lead his flock and Peter died in Rome, then appointed Linus, also in the Bible, to be his successor, and so forth, the apostolic succession from Peter can be seen only in the Catholic Church.

What about Antioch ? That is a Petrine see too.​

1. Your reasoning assumes an awful lot - it assumes that the succession from Peter onwards has never been doubtful, never been broken, that the faith has always been maintained in the Church at Rome, that the lists of bishops are reliable.
2. It seems to be assumed that organisational unity is enough to cancel grave moral faults - even though this is a
   relatively novel view.

All of these assumptions are questionable - it is because we tend to take them for granted as valid, that we tend not to understand how other Christians can stay Orthodox or Protestant. ##

No protestant church can claim this apostolic authority. No Protestant Church can say their original leaders were present at Pentacost with Christ. How do we know Christ appointed his apostles, led by Peter, to be his Holy Catholic Church, because there was no Bible to distribute.

The Bible comes through the ancient catholic = universal] Church in general - not from the ancient Catholic Church. Anglicans, Orthodox, and Protestants in general are as legitimately descended from the ancient Church as we are; and the problems some bodies encounter in showing this, are not noticeably greater than those we encounter.​

Had Christ not wanted the heirarchical structure of the Church authority to be there he would have explicitely stated so,

This argument proves too much - He said nothing about female clergy either. He did forbid domination among His followers, explicitly, several times - yet this has too often been ignored. And he said nothing about having priests, let alone unmarried ones. Maybe He did not regard such things as important.​

but he said otherwise on many different occasions. No other historical founding date is given for the Catholic Church except for that given during Pentacost.

That is no proof that other Churches are not also the descendants of the Apostolic Church, however. The Apostles - who should know - did not say that the hierarchy was a permanent part of the Church’s constitution: so it might in principle be perfectly legitimate to have a church which changes from having bishops to having moderators.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Genesis315:

I always wondered how Protestant churches without bishops reconcile that with the fact the Scripture clearly defines an episcopate and hiearchy (bishops, presbyters, deacons).

Anyway, here are some quotes by early Christians. I’m sure if you research you can find the whole documents.

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

A diversity of functions in the ministry, is not the same as a hierarchy.​

Christ’s warnings about service and greatness do not encourage the notion of having a hierarchy either.

One possibility is that bishop and presbyter are the same thing: presbyters, should have episkope, “oversight”, and so be episkopoi, bishops. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

Quite right. The Roman Catholic Church itself began in 1054 AD at the time of the Great Schism, although it had been coming to birth for several centuries before that. The Catholic Church which began in 33 AD continued on in the East and is today called “The Orthodox Catholic Church”, “The Eastern Orthodox Church” or as its members simply call it “The Church.”

Here are two timelines of Church history.

1. This is in written form
   orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Church_History
2. This is in the form of a graph (in pdf format)
   odox.net/A%20Timeline%20of%20Church%20History.pdf

I think this swapping of graphs is rather amusing ​

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

## I think this swapping of graphs is rather amusing ##

My graph is longer than yours.

 

[CatherineofA]

Lumen Gentium:

There is a big difference between gathering people for a healthy discussion and debate and gathering people to discuss and debate for the purpose of questioning their faith.

It was certainly offensive to point out why a renowned and expert in early church history is Orthodox and not Catholic while certainly there are also other early church history experts who are not Orthodox. Its insinuation is actually more skeptical than convincing discourses.

Since you have just come to read him, It’s best to complete your readings on what he has to say. Then I also suggest you to research on some Catholic early church historians and pick one from them and make a reading too. Then you can present both views and we’ll make commentaries. By presenting both views, we would have the tendency to be more objective in our discourse.

Also, didn’t you also mention him to ask about people’s opinions about how a man who is not Orthodox, or not a protestant, jew, or muslim for that matter, can be regarded also as a specialist in the field of early church history within the academic community?

Again, it you choose to feel personally insulted about being asked and told about contradictory views on the early church, then that is up to you. Contradictory views on a faith is an assumed consequence of discussing any type of opposing theology. This is a discussion board on Non-Catholic issues afterall.
It is a fact that there are historians who dispute the Catholic Church’s claims about the early Christians. If you are offended by that fact, then perhaps you should only focus on the writers and scholars who support your point of view. I have seen numerous posts of your own that would be insulting to Protestants. Then again, strong questions and comments are the nature of this forum.
As far as advising me to read more of him before I comment on him or ask for opinions on his type of point of view, perhaps you should do the same before you dismiss him. An open mind is actually considering all the avenues and not ignoring the ones that “feel yucky”. I do intend to hit all the points of view. Catholic and otherwise.
If you have any opinion about such an historian’s reputation in the academic community, feel free.

 

[CatherineofA]

Lumen Gentium:

Christ commanded to spread his message, the gospel . He didn’t say to build churches for he built his church upon the rock (Apostolic Succession) to whom he entrusted its care (feed my sheep; feed my lambs). Christ saw the importance of entrusting this great task that’s why he gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

You have a distorted view of who the messenger is. Christ is both the messenger and the message. He is the Father’s messenger and he is the Father’s message. The messenger is NOT the church.

You also have a distorted view of what the foundation is. The foundation is the one and only true church of which Christ is the founder and of which he built upon the rock. The same church the Protestants detached themselves from, built churches upon churches, denominations upon denominations, twisted truths and spread lies. St. Paul warns in the Scriptures against those who disunite themselves from the church. He says they are sinful.

Christ founded the Catholic Church who teaches and spreads the faith that was handed down to us from the Holy Apostles. I do not understand what faith with equal credibility or footing as this universal church is you are talking about. Faith doesn’t have levels of credibility or levels. It’s either true or false. Btw, the core of beliefs is what we call “faith” and those following or adhering to the faith is what we call the faithful.

PAX

I think what your post proves is something that is not a secret to anyone. Catholicism and Protestantism has a very wide gap difference between them. Catholics feel you have to be Catholic to be in the right church. Protestants think you have to accept Jesus as savior and ask forgiveness of your sins and the Christian walk happens to take place in a church. Big difference.

 

[Church_Militant]

CatherineofA:

I think what your post proves is something that is not a secret to anyone. Catholicism and Protestantism has a very wide gap difference between them. Catholics feel you have to be Catholic to be in the right church. Protestants think you have to accept Jesus as savior and ask forgiveness of your sins and the Christian walk happens to take place in a church. Big difference.

Perceived difference in some things, maybe?

 

[CatherineofA]

Church Militant:

Perceived difference in some things, maybe?

My comment on Catholics was that they feel you have to be Catholic to be in the right church? Was that comment true or false?

 

[SL20]

If you want the complete fullness of Christianity (what Jesus intended) then yes only the Catholic Church provides this.

However protestant churches do hold some elements of truth…but the farther away you separate from the Catholic Church the more watered down teachings become and the likelihood of “wondering into myths” is very high.

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

 

[steve_b]

Gottle of Geer:

What about Antioch ? That is a Petrine see too.​

I’ve always wanted to see someone take the challenge, and do a full defense of Antioch.
Gottle of Geer:

1. Your reasoning assumes an awful lot - it assumes that the succession from Peter onwards has never been doubtful, never been broken, that the faith has always been maintained in the Church at Rome, that the lists of bishops are reliable.

Don’t you think that with all the scholarship and early Church documentation available, it is now up to the sceptic to unprove what has already been proven?
Gottle of Geer:

It seems to be assumed that organisational unity is enough to cancel grave moral faults - even though this is a relatively novel view.

Who is suggesting that organizational unity cancels out grave moral faults?
Gottle of Geer:

The Bible comes through the ancient catholic = universal] Church in general - not from the ancient Catholic Church.​

1. The councils of Hippo and Carthage, decided on the canon of scripture, which then became the bible i.e. the collection of canonical books. These councils were Catholic Church councils. The canon of scripture, was ratified by the pope.
2. The ancient Church is the Catholic Church.

Gottle of Geer:

Anglicans, Orthodox, and Protestants in general are as legitimately descended from the ancient Church as we are; and the problems some bodies encounter in showing this, are not noticeably greater than those we encounter. ##

Anglicans are Protestants, and according to “Dominus Jesus” they are not proper churches. The Orthodox are proper Churches.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
Gottle of Geer:

This argument proves too much - He said nothing about female clergy either.​

check the links below
Gottle of Geer:

He did forbid domination among His followers, explicitly, several times - yet this has too often been ignored.

What has been ignored is Jesus command to Peter and therefore his successors

1. Feed and rule my sheep. The word in Jn 21:16 is poimaino in Greek. Shepherd/tend is one translation but the word also means rule. Jesus says this directly to Peter in front of all the apostles after the resurrection. Rule is what a shepherd does also with his flock. They are complimentary terms
2. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what ever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
3. The Church Jesus builds on Peter is the pillar and foundation of truth.
4. Every person who hangs a sign out the door calling himself a church is not the Church… Jesus established only one Church, and He did it ONCE.

Gottle of Geer:

And he said nothing about having priests, let alone unmarried ones. Maybe He did not regard such things as important. ##

.Celibacy and the Priesthood
**URL: **catholic.com/library/celibacy_and_the_priesthood.asp

.Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?< (This Rock: April 2004)
**URL: **catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

Priestly Celibacy(This Rock: April 2001)
**URL: **catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp

Women and the Priesthood
**URL: **catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp
Can women be ordained to the priesthood?

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Catherine,

We can have an endless discussion on Religion, Theology, Church History and such and we can quote any sources without questioning why these sources aren’t Catholic.

Consider the two (a) and (b) :

(a). Mr. A is an aclaimed church history expert. Why is he Orthodox?

You probably meant (a), but then you wanted to make an impression on something by saying (b).

(b). Mr. B is an aclaimed church history expert. Why is he not Catholic (or Jew or Protestant or Muslim for that matter)?

If you can insinuate something in (b), then might as well
agree with (c) as well:

(c). Mr. C is also an aclaimed church history expert. Why is he not Orthodox or protestant like YOU?

Well with (c), I think I am going further with the last three words, and I don’t mean to be like YOU - but just to stress out my point.

You see, we can talk about things in an objective manner without questioning each other’s or our sources’ religion, church affiliations or beliefs. These are matters of faith, and matters of faith are personal. It certainly doesn’t mean that I should only focus on what others have to say that agree with what I think is true. To find the truth, I must be open to both sides.That’s actually what objectivity is all about. But to have an open mind on discussions, we must also acknowledge the boundaries and limits. You can’t expect a healthy discussion when personal matters / agenda are integrated.

I am actually not dismissing what your Orthodox historian is saying for how could I? You haven’t even pointed out here a single thought on what he is saying. To accuse me as dismissing him is simply absurd!

You said that there have been “numerous” posts I have written that are insulting to protestants. If you read most of my posts, you will find that I am actually more interested in the discussion of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, the Eastern Rites, and ecumenism. I grew up in a neighboorhood where a protestant church is just right in front of our house’s front door. That’s just about 15-20 meters in
distance, and I have had so much of protestantism and their attacks on the Catholic Church.

And also, I don’t care much on building opinions on other historians’ or other people’s reputations for that matter. Reputations are made up of people’s perceptions and thus, subjective. What I am interested is more on what their contributions for the good in this world are.

PAX

CatherineofA:

Again, it you choose to feel personally insulted about being asked and told about contradictory views on the early church, then that is up to you. Contradictory views on a faith is an assumed consequence of discussing any type of opposing theology. This is a discussion board on Non-Catholic issues afterall.
It is a fact that there are historians who dispute the Catholic Church’s claims about the early Christians. If you are offended by that fact, then perhaps you should only focus on the writers and scholars who support your point of view. I have seen numerous posts of your own that would be insulting to Protestants. Then again, strong questions and comments are the nature of this forum.
As far as advising me to read more of him before I comment on him or ask for opinions on his type of point of view, perhaps you should do the same before you dismiss him. An open mind is actually considering all the avenues and not ignoring the ones that “feel yucky”. I do intend to hit all the points of view. Catholic and otherwise.
If you have any opinion about such an historian’s reputation in the academic community, feel free.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Must be from a protestant’s point of view. Have you been a Catholic to know what they feel? If you have been a Catholic and this was what you felt when you were, then certainly you were not a Catholic at all in the first place. I don’t have the slightest idea, but I doubt you were.

From a logical point of view, you certainly cannot be a Catholic if you are in some protestant churches. Those churches don’t even believe in the Holy Eucharist. Christ founded only one church - the Holy Catholic Church, and he entrusted its care it to his Holy Apostles under the leadership of St. Peter and thus, to his successors, and not to Martin Luther. It’s right there recorded in the Gospels.

PAX

CatherineofA:

Catholics feel you have to be Catholic to be in the right church.

 

[yqbd]

i wonder why SDA isn’t on the list…

 

[steve_b]

fr ambrose:

Quite right. The Roman Catholic Church itself began in 1054 AD at the time of the Great Schism, although it had been coming to birth for several centuries before that. The Catholic Church which began in 33 AD continued on in the East and is today called “The Orthodox Catholic Church”, “The Eastern Orthodox Church” or as its members simply call it “The Church.”

Here are two timelines of Church history.

1. This is in written form
orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of_Church_History

2. This is in the form of a graph (in pdf format)
odox.net/A%20Timeline%20…20Histor y.pdf

## I think this swapping of graphs is rather amusing ##

The Orthodox timeline that Fr Ambrose posted had the following note at the end, [emphesis mine.]

Notes

• Some of these dates are necessarily a bit vague, as records for some periods are particularly difficult to piece together accurately.
• The division of Church History into separate eras as we do here will always be to some extent arbitrary, though we have tried to group periods according to major watershed events.
• This timeline is necessarily biased toward the history of the Orthodox Church, though a number of non-Orthodox events are mentioned for their importance in history related to Orthodoxy.

1. The author acknowledges his timeline is biased. In otherwords, It won’t support the Orthodox Church, unless biased that way.
2. When you know you’ve introduced bias into “history” to support a preconceived premise, you don’t have history. You’ve got fiction.
3. To knowingly bias history, then pass it off as fact, is to practice deceit.

 

[steve_b]

CatherineofA:

My comment on Catholics was that they feel you have to be Catholic to be in the right church? Was that comment true or false?

“Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal”
***St Ambrose of Milan 381 A.D… ***

Handy quotes from Early Church Fathers, from "original sources"
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:
The Orthodox timeline that Fr Ambrose posted had the following note at the end, [emphesis mine.]

Notes

• Some of these dates are necessarily a bit vague, as records for some periods are particularly difficult to piece together accurately.
• The division of Church History into separate eras as we do here will always be to some extent arbitrary, though we have tried to group periods according to major watershed events.
• This timeline is necessarily biased toward the history of the Orthodox Church, though a number of non-Orthodox events are mentioned for their importance in history related to Orthodoxy.

1. The author acknowledges his timeline is biased. In otherwords, It won’t support the Orthodox Church, unless biased that way.
2. When you know you’ve introduced bias into “history” to support a preconceived premise, you don’t have history. You’ve got fiction.
3. To knowingly bias history, then pass it off as fact, is to practice deceit.

Dear Steve b,

You are introducing a narrow and overly negative understanding of bias. When a teacher wishes to teach the history of England she will refer to the history of France and Spain only insofar as it impacts on the history of England. Extraneous French and Spanish history will be left out. So she has a bias towards English history in her teaching programme.

The use of the word bias carries the same meaning in the note for the timeline. It does not mean that the timeline is false or intended to deceive, no more than the teacher’s English history lesson.

---

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
Tá Críost ar éirígh! Go deimhin, tá Sé ar éirígh!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

“Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal”
***St Ambrose of Milan 381 A.D… ***It is not advisable to extrapolate quotes and use them in isolation in order to bolster favoured doctrines -a well established technique of the Protestants.

By taking the quote out of context (it is in Saint Ambrose’s Commentary on the Twelve Psalms of David) and using it in the way you have presented it, it immediately looses any sense.

You want it to mean that “where Rome is, there is the Church.” because you want to equate the authority given to Peter with the bishops of Rome. So what does that mean? That Rome is the Church and only Rome? So, what about Athens? What about Milan? What about Venice? These are not the Church?!! Peter is not there in Athens and Milan and Venice?!

The only way to understand the quote and to make sense of it is to place it in the full context of what Saint Ambrose believed. He believes that EVERY bishop is Peter, and so what he is really saying is: wherever you find a bishop you find Peter and you find the Church (precisely what Saint Irenaeus teaches us too.) So the quote, when it is restored to its proper context is in full accord with the big-O Orthodox understanding and provides no support for the modern idea of a papacy focused in Rome.

I can balance the distortion of Saint Ambrose’s teaching by offering a balancing quote, but the best thing is to sit down with his written works and read them and gain an overall view of his theology."The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”

---

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
Tá Críost ar éirígh! Go deimhin, tá Sé ar éirígh!