In what order did each church appear?

[CatherineofA]

Church Militant:

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

I guess YOU will never know unless YOU check out the sources. I think I saw the documentary in question. I don’t recall them claiming the Catholic Church was around at the time of Peter.

 

[Church_Militant]

CatherineofA:

I guess YOU will never know unless YOU check out the sources. I think I saw the documentary in question. I don’t recall them claiming the Catholic Church was around at the time of Peter.

Here Catherine, catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm

Ignatius of Antioch, close friend and disciple of St. John (the last of the apostles to die), martyr, and the bishop of the church at Antioch, (Remember that place? “Where we were first called Christians.” [Acts 11:26]) tells us in about 107-110 AD that the early church was indeed already called Catholic. For him to use that term at that time means that it was already in use as the acknowleged name of the Christian church .This is no more (at worst) than 11 years after St. John died.and 77 years after Jesus.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[steve_b]

RonWI:

If you ask a Lutheran, he will say that the establishment of the Christian Church was recorded in Acts 2. From there, it grew and its hierarchy is documented in the cannons of the Council of Nicea. Lutherans will say that these, and other cannons show that the universal church was the collection of the various churches at the time. It was not the church at Rome, with all others submitted to it. You can disagree, but that is the position.

Consider this.

In the year 110, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is on his way to Rome to be fed to the lions. He writes 6 letters on the way to the churches, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Trallians, Ephesians, Smyraens, and of course Romans.

Ignatius is about 80 years old at this point in his life. That means he was born around the year 30. He knew St John the apostle. Here is his opening salutation to the Church of Rome. There’s alot to talk about here but I’m only going to focus on the point that keeps coming up. And that’s authority.

"Ignatius who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according ta the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. "

If you read all the other letters of Ignatius, particularly his salutations, i.e. the greeting from Ignatius to the various churches, his salutations are very informative. This one is his longest by far, and all the others are short compared to this letter. And ONLY Rome is the Church out of all the others he writes to, who Ignatius says is the*** presider***. In some translations, holds the presidency. None of the other churches he writes to, gets that acknowledgment. Are all churches autocephelous as the Orthodox would claim? Then how can Ignatius call Rome the presider in the year 110?

Part of this acknowledgement is due to

1. Rome being the chair of Peter, and the Christian world knows it
2. Clement of Rome, writing in the year 80, has already settled a dispute in Corinth in his letter to the Corinthians. Rome settling sedition in Greece among their bishops.*

 

[GregoryPalamas]

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.
2. Some Protestant denominational information is too generalized.

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as truth? Are you saying that if two people see a Chevrolet coming down the street and one says “that is a Chevrolet” and the other says “No, that is a chicken” that they are both correct? Or are you saying that neither is correct unless one gives a disclaimer?

We know that the Lutherans were founded by Luther, the Calvinists by Calvin, Four Square by Aimee Semple McPherson. We know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, unless the Scriptures themselves are untrue. It doesn’t take a disclaimer because frankly the truth is the truth and no one disputes these historical facts. There is no doubt in my mind that a Methodist would honestly say that the founders of the Methodist Church are John and Charles Wesley.

Dan L

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Consider this.

1. Clement of Rome, writing in the year 80, has already settled a dispute in Corinth in his letter to the Corinthians. Rome settling sedition in Greece among their bishops.

Consider this too.

Corinth had been recently built as a Roman colony. It was more Roman than Greek. It had a special dependence directly on the city of Rome and it enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

There was direct church link between Rome and Corinth because both shared the same founder, Saint Paul. It is highly likely that Clement had worked in Corinth with Saint Paul and was known and respected by the Corinthians. See Phillipians 4:2.

So all in all there were a number of quite sensible reasons why the Corinthians asked the Church of Rome to help them with their problem.

 

[steve_b]

CatherineofA:

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.

I prefer not to use historians if I can use primary sources first. It takes the filter issue away of going through a historian with a bias.

 

[Subrosa]

Fr Ambrose:

We must remember that there are some Churches which are a little older than Rome… for example, there is the Church of Jerusalem where Saint James the Brother of the Lord was the first Bishop, and there is the Church of Antioch where Saint Peter was the founder of its See and where he lived before he travelled to Rome. These Churches still exist today, standing in a great stream of tradition flowing from the time of the holy Apostles.

While I will agree with you that some of the local churches are older than the Catholic Church which has its lineage in Rome, The fact is that Christ began only ONE church and then sent the apostles forward “to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” The word “Catholic” which means “Universal”, while retained by the church of Rome after the schism, was originally intended to mean “all Christians.” So, therefore it follows that all “local” churches initiated by the apostles or thier appointed bishops are a part, wholly and completely, of the church founded by Christ contained in His statement to Simon, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Mt 16:18). NOTE: Notice the singular use of the word “church”. The church of Rome is as legitimately founded by Christ as the see of Jerusalem, Alexandria or Constantinople.

Let us pray for our Orthodox brethren during thier Holy Week.
Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

GregoryPalamas:

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as truth? Are you saying that if two people see a Chevrolet coming down the street and one says “that is a Chevrolet” and the other says “No, that is a chicken” that they are both correct? Or are you saying that neither is correct unless one gives a disclaimer?

We know that the Lutherans were founded by Luther, the Calvinists by Calvin, Four Square by Aimee Semple McPherson. We know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, unless the Scriptures themselves are untrue. It doesn’t take a disclaimer because frankly the truth is the truth and no one disputes these historical facts. There is no doubt in my mind that a Methodist would honestly say that the founders of the Methodist Church are John and Charles Wesley.

Dan L

Quite true. you have a right to your opinion, but not a right to your own facts.

Subrosa

 

[Faustina]

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. They do, because I have heard seminary graduates say so. The next chance I get, I will be asking them about the details. The history aspect to Christianity is becoming very interesting to me.

I have to ask, again, WHO is the founder of the Catholic Church.
All of my reading, research and common sense say it was Christ.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Consider this too.

Corinth had been recently built as a Roman colony. It was more Roman than Greek. It had a special dependence directly on the city of Rome and it enjoyed easy and unhindered communication with Rome.

There was direct church link between Rome and Corinth because both shared the same founder, Saint Paul. It is highly likely that Clement had worked in Corinth with Saint Paul and was known and respected by the Corinthians. See Phillipians 4:2.

So all in all there were a number of quite sensible reasons why the Corinthians asked the Church of Rome to help them with their problem.

1. we need to distinguish between Church and state matters at this time in history. The Church of Rome had zero influence over the temporal matters of secular Rome, and especially, had no presumed relationship with a colony of Rome. Christianity was under severe attack from the state at this time.
2. Under Nero, just 20 years earlier, Peter and Paul were executed in Rome in the late 60’s, and Christians in Rome in general, were human torches lighting the way along the Appian way. The persecution of the Church continued for the next 250+ years. If the Church of Rome got involved in Corinthian Church matters, it had nothing to do with the power the secular state had over a colony.
3. St John hasn’t written the book of revelation yet, and is still alive over on Patmos. That’s a whole lot closer to Corinth than Rome was. Why didn’t Corinth go 1st to John, the last living apostle. Unless of course, it’s already understood by the Church which is already being called Catholic, that Rome is the Church in the role of president, as Ignatius writes in the year 107…
4. Corinth is in Greece. A country that is geographically considered in the Eastern empire and what today would be called Orthodox. Rome is in the West. If Churches were all autosephelous as the Orthodox claim, then at this early date in history, DURING apostolic times, this certainly contradicts that notion, because Rome has presumed to enter into the internal affairs of an independent Church in a different country, and there is almost a presumption that the Church of Rome can do this. And there is no uproar from the other Churches. In fact it seems from Clement’s letter, that Rome has already intervened a prior time(s) earlier in the Corinthian Church. In fact the Corinthians still read Clements letter at mass.
5. Paul wrote the Corinthians twice about disciplinary matters. So we know Corinth wasn’t a particularly new city when Clement intervenes also. And yes Paul probably established the Church at Corinth. But Paul traveled all over the Mediterranean. He was the common denominator in alot of Churches. So by saying Corinth and Rome had Paul in common among them, and that’s why Clement got involved in their internal affairs, is to ignore all the other Churches that also have Paul as their common thread. And these Churches are much closer geographically to Corinth than Rome is.

Let’s face it. No matter how one slices it, Rome got involved because it’s the chair of Peter.

 

[exoflare]

RonWI:

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.

Luther’s initial justification for the revolt was the instance of abuses with the indulgences (human error). How, then, does this explain Luther’s completely unrelated decision to just decide to take books out of the Bible he didn’t agree with, as well as his delcaration of “faith alone” (both “correcting” previously held infallible doctrines of the church). He also maintained that the Pope was really the AntiChrist. Is it really that hard to understand why they excommunicated him?

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Most, if not, all church history books always start with the Catholic Church. I’m sure Protestant, Orthodox or any church seminaries or even historians who teach about church history know about it. Prejudice starts where teachings of other churches become twisted or heretic from the point in time when they broke away from the Catholic church. That is why an Orthodox priest-historian, even if he knows who the real church is, wouldn’t be Catholic.

I am not against reading anything from a non-Catholic point of view. It serves as a way to know where the truth was twisted. It’s actually a way to find the truth - to know the other side of the story, and in a way, to strengthen and defend what I know the truth is.

CatherineofA:

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?

 

[steve_b]

CatherineofA:

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.

The problem is, scripture condemns division both physically and doctrinally. Paul is very serious on that fact.

CatherineofA:

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.

Paul would rip Protestants a new rear end for all their divisions. As a famous saying goes, by a very famous Protestant who turned Catholic, “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant” John Cardinal Henry Newman.] To rephrase it another way, to be deep in history is to be Catholic.

CatherineofA:

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.

I would be happy to give you the sources…These are all primary documents and writings.

newadvent.org/fathers/ this lists the Early Church writers in alphabetical order rather than by time line

fordham.edu/halsall/sbook2.html#fathers2 this is a huge site.

This will get you started. I’ll give you more, but believe me, this alone will keep you reading for a looooong time. Be sure to bookmark these sites. If you want me to point you to specific writers, who speak spicifically about certain doctrines or beliefs you’re interested in, just ask and maybe I can quicken your search.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

I look at it this way:

The Lutherans corrected errors in the church in 1517.

First, the church cannot commit errors. If Christ founded a church that commits errors, it wouldn’t be where it is right now; It would have been gone a long time ago. The church cannot commit errors simply because it was founded by Christ, our Lord and Savior.

The Lutherans broke away from the church starting in 1517.

Second, humans do commit errors in the church when heretical teachings find their way to the church. That is why there were ecumenical councils to resolve issues, defy heretical teachings, explain and uphold the truth about the faith. I am with you on this.

The question, why break away from already an institution (the church) when there can be councils to resolve issues?

The gates of hell, then, prevailed against those who break away from the church.
PAX

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.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Ouch!

I would like to follow the footsteps of St. Peter. I don’t mind dying a martyr for Christ. I’d like to be a saint, yah know.

Happy Weekend Fr. Ambrose.
Fr Ambrose:

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

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

The same argument on why the Orthodox church was not mentioned in the site whostartedyourchurch.com can be applied here.

If the Orthodox Church considers itself to be Catholic, then why question about the poster not mentioning as to who founded the Orthodox Church when the Catholic Church, who considers the Orthodox Church part of her, being founded by Christ is mentioned?

PAX
Fr Ambrose:

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.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

The same argument on why the Orthodox church was not mentioned in the site whostartedyourchurch.com can be applied here.

If the Orthodox Church considers itself to be Catholic, then why question about the poster not mentioning as to who founded the Orthodox Church when the Catholic Church, who considers the Orthodox Church part of her, being founded by Christ is mentioned?

Lumen, you have not picked up on the fact that the way Orthodox understand “Catholic” is not the same as the Roman Catholic understanding of the word.

When we say that we are Catholic and when we call ourselves Orthodox Catholics we don’t mean that we are part of the Roman Catholic Church. If we did, then I guess we’d all be communing in one another’s churches?

Anyway, you know that your argument won’t work The Episcopalians claim to be Catholic but Pope Benedict (in Dominus Iesus) says that they are not even a Church and certainly not part of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Fr. Ambrose,

Of course I understand what it means to be a Catholic in an Orthodox point of view.

The point I am trying to drive at was that the Roman Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Church part of her yet the Orthodox Church doesn’t. Obviously, the author behind the website whostartedyourchurch.com and the poster are both Roman Catholics who consider the Orthodox Church part of the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore no need to mention the Orthodox Church on that website and no need to mention Christ as the founder of the Orthodox Church. I wouldn’t react with the same argument if both the author behind that website and the poster are Orthodox.

The Episcopalians are of different matter. It doesn’t really matter if other churches call themselves Catholic. What matters is when the Roman Catholic Church considers a part of her. The Orthodox Church, for example.

PAX
Fr Ambrose:

Lumen, you have not picked up on the fact that the way Orthodox understand “Catholic” is not the same as the Roman Catholic understanding of the word.

When we say that we are Catholic and when we call ourselves Orthodox Catholics we don’t mean that we are part of the Roman Catholic Church. If we did, then I guess we’d all be communing in one another’s churches?

Anyway, you know that your argument won’t work The Episcopalians claim to be Catholic but Pope Benedict (in Dominus Iesus) says that they are not even a Church and certainly not part of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

The point I am trying to drive at was that the Roman Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Church part of her yet the Orthodox Church doesn’t.

Well, I am delighted for all the Catholics who are now see themselves as part of the Orthodox Church Are you really sure though that you want to be part of us? No doubt, it’ll be good for the divorced and remarried Roman Catholics since we can regularise their marital situation and admit them to Communion.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Well, you still misunderstood my point. Think of the Roman Catholic Church as the mother and the Orthodox Church as the son gone astrayed. Since the son came from the mother, the mother considers the son her very own. The mother with her open arms is eagerly awaiting her son to be united with her. Can you ever imagine the sorrow of the mother while her son is away from her?

PAX
Fr Ambrose:

Well, I am delighted for all the Catholics who are now see themselves as part of the Orthodox Church Are you really sure though that you want to be part of us? No doubt, it’ll be good for the divorced and remarried Roman Catholics since we can regularise their marital situation and admit them to Communion.