In what order did each church appear?

[CatherineofA]

I am Southern Baptist. This denomination has a hierarchy within the church as well as a separate hierarchy within the organizational offices of the denomination. The churches are independent units within a collective group of denominational churches.

I appreciate the book references. I know that some of you have read books that support an early and only Catholic Church. However, have you persued an education in publications that did not lean towards the Catholic view? I ask because many Protestant seminaries have early church history courses and their seminary students have to take it along with courses in ancient languages such as Greek. There are also historians who teach early church history in secular universities that have no particular theological view. No matter where you get your history, all have to base their facts on documented evidence for it to be credible. Have you read any of these “other” histories?
I know of one historian and Orthodox priest who is a scholar for The History Channel, a media consultant for the networks and written press on the early church, writer of books and articles as well as respected college professor. He is Orthodox. With all of his knowledge and respect by the academic and community of historians, why is he Orthodox? Surely, if he had found the Catholic Church to be the true church he would be Catholic. I am not saying Catholicism is incorrect. However, if you only study history presented by your own point of view and never examine the evidence they claim they have, how can you know for sure?

 

[exoflare]

RonWI:

If you are Catholic, then the Lutheran Church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther. If you are Lutheran, your church was established in Acts 2, and was cleansed of error in 1517.

In other words, “the gates of hell prevailed” against the one true church up until 1517?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

rschermer2:

Hello Fr. Abrose,

Do remember that the link given did not say the the Roman Catholic Chuch was started in 33 AD but the Catholic Church.

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

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

I couldn’t agree more even as Ron said:

“This is why I say: you are not going to convince a Lutheran he is wrong by telling him he thinks his church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther.”

Because I cannot convince a Lutheran neither that he is wrong by telling him what he thinks is right (that his church can be traced back to ACTS). It’s conceding to what the Lutheran believes. In other words, to convince I have to disprove what he believes and this is the best argument: that the gates of hell couldn’t prevail against the true church up until 1517!

If the Lutheran believes he can trace his church back to the ACTS of the Apostles, and considering the error cleansing they say in 1517, then the gates of hell couldn’t prevail their church from the period of the ACTS down to 1517, and therefore no need of error cleansing.

I’m confused as to what Lutherans believe.

PAX

exoflare:

In other words, “the gates of hell prevailed” against the one true church up until 1517?

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Here’s a better and clearer timeline:

scborromeo.org/truth/figure1.pdf

Quite illogical. For how could it had been coming to birth for several centuries before 1054 AD and began in 1054 AD?
A church in process before its beginning?

Who came first: the chicken or the egg, Fr. Ambrose?

The Catholic Church began in 33 AD, spread far east and far west and is today called the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, " “The Roman Catholic Church,” or as known universally,
“The Catholic Church.”

PAX
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

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Lumen Gentium:

Here’s a better and clearer timeline:

scborromeo.org/truth/figure1.pdf

Quite illogical. For how could it had been coming to birth for several centuries before 1054 AD and began in 1054 AD?
A church in process before its beginning?

Who came first: the chicken or the egg, Fr. Ambrose?

The Catholic Church began in 33 AD, spread far east and far west and is today called the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, " “The Roman Catholic Church,” or as known universally, “The Catholic Church.” No althoughs, no Ifs, no buts.

PAX

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

Quite illogical. For how could it had been coming to birth for several centuries before 1054 AD and began in 1054 AD?
A church in process before its beginning?

Yes. Every birth is preceded by a time of pregnancy.

The Church of Rome had been isolated from the rest of the Church by the barbarian invasions, the Goths and the Huns etc. These had begun as early as the 5th century and had a devastating effect on Rome

Although Rome used to celebrate the Mass in Greek and to write in Greek for the first two centuries and more, it gradually lost most of its knowledge of Greek which continued to be the lingua franca of the Empire and so this also cut it off from the wider Mediterranean Christian world. The isolation wasn’t complete of course but it was damaging. One result was that it turned inward and developed doctines of its own supremacy and even of its supremacy over emperors and the secular power -a reaction to the hard times under the barbarians.

The rise of a Germanic papacy was another factor. Popes such as Hildebrand had had no experience of the previous life of the Church which swirled around the Mediterranean, Italy and Greece, the Holy Land. They came in with a new outlook, very teutonic, very belligerent, very unsympathetic, rather unsophisticated. And so we have another factor which isolated the Church of Rome from the other Patriarchates, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople.

The result of this lengthy and complicated process was the complete melt down of mutual understanding and respect between the Church of Rome and the rest of the Church. It culminated in the papal excommunication of 1054 AD which is the event to which we conventionally date the Great Schism.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

The Catholic Church began in 33 AD, spread far east and far west and is today called the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, " “The Roman Catholic Church,” or as known universally, “The Catholic Church.”

Prepare to be slaughtered by the members of the 22 *sui juris * Churches

 

[RonWI]

exoflare:

In other words, “the gates of hell prevailed” against the one true church up until 1517?

No. Humans in the church committed error before 1517. They committed error in 1517. They committed error after 1517.

Why do you think there were all of the ecumenical councils that there were? It was to correct the error that was present.

Do you argue that Cardinal Law has not committed errors in the past 30 years?

The existence of human errors is not equal to the gates of hell prevailing.

 

[rayne89]

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:****

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by Abraham about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Islamic, Mohammed started your religion in what is now Saudi Arabia around A.D. 600.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

 

[exoflare]

RonWI:

No. Humans in the church committed error before 1517. They committed error in 1517. They committed error after 1517.

Why do you think there were all of the ecumenical councils that there were? It was to correct the error that was present.

Do you argue that Cardinal Law has not committed errors in the past 30 years?

The existence of human errors is not equal to the gates of hell prevailing.

You’re confusing the errors of humans with the infallability of Church dogma. They’re two different things. Give me one example of a previously infallible dogma being “corrected” (note: that doesn’t mean “expanded upon”) in an ecumenical council.

I know you won’t find one, but hey if you’re bored this will give you something to occupy your time.

 

[Church_Militant]

CatherineofA:

I am not talking about doctrine. I am talking about the generally accepted point of view about early Christianity in the historian community. Not just Catholic historians or the Catholic Church’s view of its history. I am talking about documented evidence and how that evidence or lack of evidence is viewed by the community of historians at large.

Geez…so A&E’s documentary on the first 1000 years of Christianity is wrong?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

rayne89:

Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:****

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

Interesting that the author does not dare to answer his own question: By whom? To deny that the Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ would be a terrible lie. He knows this and so he prefers to say nothing and not have the lie on his conscience.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

 

[steve_b]

rschermer2:

Hello Fr. Abrose,

Do remember that the link given did not say the the Roman Catholic Chuch was started in 33 AD but the Catholic Church.

RS

Do remember, the proper name of the Church of Rome, is the Catholic Church. The same Church Paul writes to in his letter to the Romans. The one built on St Peter. As Paul says, “the whole world has heard of your faith”[Rm 1:8] The “Roman” qualifier only became an issue because of the Protestant revolt, and of course with all controversialists opposed to the Catholic Church,.

For a discussion of this
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ250.HTM

 

[RonWI]

exoflare:

You’re confusing the errors of humans with the infallability of Church dogma. They’re two different things. Give me one example of a previously infallible dogma being “corrected” (note: that doesn’t mean “expanded upon”) in an ecumenical council.

I know you won’t find one, but hey if you’re bored this will give you something to occupy your time.

I am not sure what the disagreement is. Neither of us think the gates of hell have ever prevailed. I never said any Catholic Church dogma was corrected. I never raised the issue of infallability.

What happened in 1517 (and 1054) had nothing to do with any of these random issues. In both cases, some members in the church pointed out human error, and the Roman response was: you’re excommunicated! In neither case did the excommunicated parties say anything about the gates of hell prevailing or infallable doctrine being corrected.

 

[steve_b]

CatherineofA:

Two bad points on this website:

1. Makes assumption that Catholic Church was established by Christ. A disclaimer is needed since Non-Catholics do not perceive it that way.

1. Jesus establishing the Catholic Church is not an assumption or perception, it’s verifiable fact. The proof is iron clad.
2. It’s not perception, but verifiable fact, that non-Catholics can only point to a human founder starting their churches.

 

[steve_b]

CatherineofA:

I think you missed the point of my statement. To present the facts on founders without a bias, a disclaimer would have to be posted that differing views are held about the founding of the Catholic Church. The same would hold true for a Protestant website that made claims without a disclaimer about differing views. If the Catholic Church had an undisputed claim to the roots of Christianity, Protestant seminaries would not be presenting an alternate historical view.

There are people who will dispute any and all things regardless of facts.

 

[CatherineofA]

1. Jesus establishing the Catholic Church is not an assumption or perception, it’s verifiable fact. The proof is iron clad.

1. It’s not perception, but verifiable fact, that non-Catholics can only point to a human founder starting their churches.

I agree with you that Protestant denominations were started by people. They have never claimed anything else. A denomination is a man made institution in which to follow and accept Biblical teachings and the salvation of Christ. They see Christ as the founder of Christians and that he has saved people directly. They do not claim that being a member of their denomiantion saves you.

As far as Jesus establishing the Catholic Church being historical fact, can you point me to primary documentation about recorded historical events that support this? I am looking into this claim by the Catholic Church because it appears to be a major defense for the “correctness” of the faith.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

RonWI:

What happened in 1517 (and 1054) had nothing to do with any of these random issues. In both cases, some members in the church pointed out human error, and the Roman response was: you’re excommunicated!

Yes, remember the ludicrous basis for the excommunication of the Orthodox? Rome made two charges in the Bull of Excommunication:

1. The omission of the filioque from the Creed
2. Married priests.

To charge the Eastern Church with omitting the filioque would send any historian into gales of laughter. Obviously Rome had lost track of theological history. Ditto for the accusation of having married priests.

In other words, the Orthodox were excommunicated unjustly and in ignorance on two points on which they were totally innocent.

 

[CatherineofA]

steve b:

There are people who will dispute any and all things regardless of facts.

You just used the perfect word-FACTS. That is exactly what history is and it is the way it is presented by historians. History cannot be claimed to be FACT unless there is documentation or evidence supporting that an event occurred. Without that documentation or evidence, people have faith or they have the most likely case or they have theories about events. History cannot be taught and actually be true history if it is fabricated. What people have to do is determine what the basis of the history presented isn and if it is spin or documented events.