In what order did each church appear?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BOANERGES21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BOANERGES21:
Ok, I know the Catholic Church is first but…does anyone have a reference or direction to lead me in on this. I am unsure of where the Baptists, Presbyterians, E Free, etc, fall in as far as a time line is concerned… Anyone have any (name removed by moderator)ut to add?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Many Baptists chuches trace their roots to John the Baptist. So I guess that makes them first instead of the Roman Catholic church. The Catholic church is the universal christian church. The Roman Catholic church is a completely different entitity.
 
Many Baptists chuches trace their roots to John the Baptist.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you’re speaking about the trail of blood and all the conspiracy theories which go along with it?

I commend Baptist for recognizing the importance of apostolic succession, but they fall short all areas. Even most serious baptist seminaries completely reject this theory and do not teach them.

Many of these baptist even call St. Patrick a Baptist! :eek:
 
First, I was unable to read all the posts (thats a lot of posts), but I felt the need to respond. I am not sure if what I am about to espouse is the “official” Protestant view, or if it is based merely on Church history, but here goes:

Basically, when people say Jesus did not start the Catholic Church, they mean he did not start the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus started what some might call simply the “early Church.” Now, you are all saying, they are one in the same. Not quite. You must realize, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, that is, the pope, was a LONG time coming. In the early church, the Bishop of Rome was just that, a mere bishop, and in fact, wasn’t even that important of a bishop. In the early Church, the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were likely considered far more important. Gradually, Rome’s importance grew, likely because of the obvious political reality - it was the capital of the Empire. So, in due time, the Bishop of Rome became quite important, but was still no moreso than the other Bishops above. Gradually, this became the idea of “first among equals.” That is, the Bishop of Rome (and I believe he began to be known as pope in this period, though I am not certain) was recognized as a mere equal of the other great Bishops, but was “first” among them (sort of like the Speaker of the House). Eventually this changed to the point where the pope became leader of the Church. Of course, around the same time, Rome as a political unit began to decrease in power - power was increasingly transferred to Constantinople in the east, with the result of the patriarch of Constantinople growing in power. As East and West became increasingly separated politically (East and West Roman Empires, and eventually the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, leaving the Eastern Roman Empire, or “Byzantine” Empire), culturally (mostly Latin culture in the west, Greek in the east), and so on, the Church in these two areas began to take differing steps. Eventually this culminated in the schism between East and West. The Byzantine Empire flourished, and it spread its culture and religion to far parts of the East (why Russians, etc, are Orthodox today). It only fell in 1453, with the sack of Constantinople by the Turkish Sultan, though by this time all that was left was the city and the peloponessus anyway.

That is “simple church history” in a nutshell. It isn’t perfect, and I didn’t give dates, etc, because im not that much of an expert. But that is my reasoning for saying Jesus did not form the Roman Catholic Church per se - he formed the Church. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as such really until the schism between east and west. So while it is proper to say the Roman Catholic Church is the “natural successor” to the early Church (though the Orthodox can make a good claim to that as well), Christ did not create it in the form we now know it, though insofar as he founded Christianity (obviously), he created it, as he did all Christian Churches.

A flowchart may help:

early Church -------->Roman Catholic Church + Orthodox Church

Roman Catholic Church ----> Roman Catholic Church + Protestants
 
This link is frequently on the banner above the forum and I wonder how many times our Protestant visitors have noticed it but have not clicked it:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

I think it will answer many of your questions regarding how Catholics can claim our Church was founded by Christ.

This is the way I see jahutch’s flow chart:

early Church (euphemism for “Catholic Church”* see below)-------->Roman Catholic Church + Orthodox Church

Roman Catholic Church ----> Roman Catholic Church + Protestants (“Protestants” is misleading as they are not one, united entity) + Protestants and Protestants and more Protestants, sects and cults

***The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles. **
(From link above regarding the early Church as “Catholic”)
 
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?
Click to expand...
Rather the same way the Orthodox feel about the Roman Catholics and perhaps even more so about the Eastern Catholic Churches.

However, you can’t have us as “sister churches” AND the “wayward son.” That’s getting a bit too weird 😃
“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!”
-Alexis Khomiakov
 
40.png
Eden:
This link is frequently on the banner above the forum and I wonder how many times our Protestant visitors have noticed it but have not clicked it:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

I think it will answer many of your questions regarding how Catholics can claim our Church was founded by Christ.

This is the way I see jahutch’s flow chart:

early Church (euphemism for “Catholic Church”* see below)-------->Roman Catholic Church + Orthodox Church

Roman Catholic Church ----> Roman Catholic Church + Protestants (“Protestants” is misleading as they are not one, united entity) + Protestants and Protestants and more Protestants, sects and cults

***The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles. **
(From link above regarding the early Church as “Catholic”)
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s better…
 
40.png
Eden:
This link is frequently on the banner above the forum and I wonder how many times our Protestant visitors have noticed it but have not clicked it:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

I think it will answer many of your questions regarding how Catholics can claim our Church was founded by Christ.

This is the way I see jahutch’s flow chart:

early Church (euphemism for “Catholic Church”* see below)-------->Roman Catholic Church + Orthodox Church

Roman Catholic Church ----> Roman Catholic Church + Protestants (“Protestants” is misleading as they are not one, united entity) + Protestants and Protestants and more Protestants, sects and cults

***The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles. **
(From link above regarding the early Church as “Catholic”)
Click to expand...
Eden, first, I mean no disrespect - I hold the Roman Catholic Church in high regard, as I do all Christians. I continue this debate not to inflame, but because I find it interesting :).

However, I believe you mis-define the term “Catholic.”

According to Websters, Catholic is:

1 (a) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal (b) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it (c) capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC

The early church was called the Catholic, or universal, church, but it was not synonomous with the Roman Catholic Church. Is the the Roman Catholic Church a direct descendant of the original Catholic church - yes, along with Orthodoxy. Did Jesus “create” the Roman Catholic Church as it now exists, with the Bishop of Rome as its head - not so much - the history does not bear this out, because, as I said above, the rise of the Bishop of Rome to prominence was a slow development.
 
The Orthodox Church will always be the Catholic Church.

Here is the definition of the word Catholic from a Catholic source:

What “Catholic” Means

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

Universal means everyone. Here is the definition of the word Universal within a reliable dictionary.
  1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: “This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness”
  2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers.
  3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
  4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
  5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects;
comprehensively broad.
  1. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
  2. Logic. Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.
The central purpose or point of the Liturgy or “Mass” is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It stands to reason that within the Catholic Church all members should be allowed to be members and receive the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To deny the Eucharistic Sacrifice to children is renounce Catholicity. Here are the words of the Priest that are said during the Latin Mass.

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS ARE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

Now all of you would be a Catholic expression. One could say that children before the age of reason having not been chrismated would not be members or full members. Suffice it to say, either way the practices of the Latins preclude the authentic use of the word Catholic. Now these non-Catholic practices are taught and a reality of the Latin episcopacy who are with the bishop of Rome who is considered by the Latins to be infallible when speaking ex-cathedra.

These are not the notions and liturgical practices of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which is the Orthodox Church which we can clearly see is in reality the Catholic Church, for the Orthodox Christ is and will always be the chief cornerstone.
 
Matthew 19

13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

When a child approaches the Eucharist in the Latin Mass they are denied the Eucharist.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

John 21:16

He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The Latins beleive and that in order to be truly Catholic one must be in communion with the Apostolic see of Rome. But the very sad reality which can be seen in many Latin Churchs for the past 1000 years or so is that a child not having reached the age of reason can not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

This reality is the result of the adjusting the original order of the sacraments by the Latins. Some actually will be truthful having looked into it and agree. If you believe in Papal infallibility and what the Latins teach and do can one really be Catholic?

There is no doubt in my mind that if the Laitn faithful and parents can accept violations of the heart, accepting other distortions, such as the Papacy of today is easy. So many other dividing matters that are misinterpreted or strangly re-written cab only lead to more of the same. The question really is why do such things to yourselves and others?

Do keep in mind that it is the aforementioned doctrinal unity that is referenced in the letter of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp which Fr. Georges Florovsky explains.

“This is the first written use, which has come down to us of the term “Catholic” Church. The word “catholic” means in Greek “universal” but the conception of catholicity cannot be measured by its world-wide expansion — “universality” does not express the Greek meaning exactly. Καθολική comes from καθ’ ολου, which first of all means the inner wholeness, not only of communion and in any case not of a simple empirical communion. Καθ’ ολου is not the same as κατά παντός. It belongs not to the phenomenal and empirical, but to the nominal and ontological plane. It describes the very essence and not the external manifestations. If “catholic” also means “universal,” it certainly is not an empirical universality but rather an ideal one: the communion of ideas, not of facts, is what is meant. St. Ignatius’ use of the word is precisely this. This word gives prominence to the orthodoxy of the Church, to the truth of the Church in contrast with the spirit of sectarian separatism and particularize. He is expressing the idea of integrity and purity.”

This doctrinal unity is also clearly seen in Orthodox worship, for there is a relationship between doctrinal unity and liturgical unity. This is the faith of our Fathers the Orthodox Catholic Church irrespective of what others say. Recently a Latin Cardinal had this to say regarding the Latin changes and liturgical renewal;

A change in space, in architecture and in the placement of altars and other liturgical furnishings, has similar effect, as has a change in language, which carries and conditions our thinking and evaluating. A change in Liturgy changes the context of the Church’s life. Recently, introducing the changes mandated by the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third typical edition), I remarked that the changes were “minor”. A lay woman of the Archdiocese of Chicago corrected me: “Cardinal, there are no minor changes in Liturgy”. She is correct.

adoremus.org/0304CardinalGeorgeSC40th.html
Some here claim there have been not changes in the Latin Church, I suppose when such changes are lived out one really can’t see them and is blinded by them so to speak.
 
St. Vincent of Lerins

“Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the word shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly nearly all, priests and doctors alike.”

“What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and corrupt member?

“What if some novel contagion seeks to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.

“What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council, if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.

“But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this kind is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare the opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained in the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.“

— St. Vincent of Lerins, “The Commonitory,“ tr. by T. Herbert Bindley (London: SPCK, 1914), book 1, chapter 2, no. 6-8, pp. 26-28. Emphasis added.

Read and see things however you like it seems.
In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
40.png
jahutch:
I believe you mis-define the term “Catholic.”

According to Websters, Catholic is:

1 (a) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal (b) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it (c) capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC
Click to expand...
By definition, when capitalized, it refers to the universal Church. When capitalized, it refers to the ancient undivided Church, or a Church in communion to it. The qualifier “Roman” changes nothing. It is capitalized by definition. 👍

Have you not watched T.V. these last weeks? Have you learned nothing of the process to replace the successor to Peter, Our first pope,? Even the media, who is certainly no friend of the Catholic Church, has done a wonderful job of covering the history and the process.
40.png
jahutch:
The early church was called the Catholic, or universal, church, but it was not synonomous with the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
You try and make a distinction that has no difference. Peter was pope of Rome. He is the Rock Jesus builds His Church on. Call it Catholic, call it Roman Catholic, I really don’t care. You’re shouveling sand against the tide. If you wanna keep doing it, hey it’s your back.
40.png
jahutch:
Is the the Roman Catholic Church a direct descendant of the original Catholic church - yes,
Click to expand...
Descendant means not original. Peter is the one Jesus says He will build His Church on. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And we’ve seen his successors down to Benedict XVI. Therefore, the Church, headquartered in Rome, is not a descendant, but the original.
 
Matthew P.:
The Orthodox Church will always be the Catholic Church.

Here is the definition of the word Catholic from a Catholic source:

What “Catholic” Means

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s the direction you want to go in for your argument.

When you look up the definition of “Catholic” you don’t find “Orthodox” anywhere in the definition. And when you look up “Orthodox”, you don’t find “Catholic” anyhwere in the definition.
 
Matthew P.:
The Orthodox Church will always be the Catholic Church.

Here is the definition of the word Catholic from a Catholic source:

What “Catholic” Means

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
Click to expand...
Matthew, test this out yourself.

encarta.msn.com/artcenter_/browse.html

Type in Orthodox, and you will be directed to the Orthodox Church. Click on it.

then

Type in Catholic, and you will be directed to the Roman Catholic Church. Click on it.

Capitalize both words to designate that they are nouns, and proper names.

Understand, I’m not crazy about secular sources. I don’t say I endorse everything Encarta says or how they handle this subject of ours. In fact I have profound disagreements on how they handle certain things within these articles. But I think it captures the popular thinking of people, if you ask them what do you mean by Orthodox, and what do you mean by Catholic.
 
steve b:
When you look up the definition of “Catholic” you don’t find “Orthodox” anywhere in the definition. And when you look up “Orthodox”, you don’t find “Catholic” anyhwere
Click to expand...
That means very little. Just because you don’t find “Orthodox” when you look up “Catholic” doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church does not make the claim to be Orthodox… and vice versa.

The Orthodox Church consistently refers to herself as the Catholic Church through all the centuries. Here are just a few examples from the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs. They are replying to an Epistle sent to them by Pope Pius IX in which he enquires about their view of the problems between the two Churches.

Throughout the letter the Orthodox Patriarchs refer to the Orthodox Church in many ways - as “The Orthodox Catholic Church”, and “The Catholic Church” and simply as “The Church.” The Orthodox are very conscious of themselves as the Una Sancta, not in a post-Vatican II way as the “the Church in which the Church subsists” but simply and unequivocally as the Una Sancta, the unique and only Church of Christ.

"To All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren; and to their Most Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

… the many great and glorious Fathers of **the Catholic Church **in all parts of the earth, [they mean the Orthodox Church]

… which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17,) has been compelled to combat

… for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church

… contrary to the universal Confession of **the Catholic Church **

… Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of **the Catholic Church ** with such is unlawful.

The whole Encyclical is here…
fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848orthodoxencyclical.html

PS: Have to cut back on postings as we are now entering Holy Week.
 
Fr Ambrose said:
PS: Have to cut back on postings as we are now entering Holy Week.
Click to expand...

Fully understandable, Father. Please take care of your spiritual duties, by all means.

Our prayers are with you.
Jerry
 
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.
Click to expand...
Ambrose, I don’t remember saying roman, but if i did i meant the Catholic Church…as for some church started by Jesus’s brother[fellow man/step-brother/anything but a blood brother], it doesn’t exist in my book. I stick to the one started by Christ.
 
40.png
TheGarg:
Ambrose
Click to expand...
Jesus’s brother[fellow man/step-brother/anything but a blood brother
Click to expand...
James the Brother of the Lord and even James the Brother of God are traditional ways of referring to Saint James who headed the Church founded by Christ at Jerusalem.

Saint Paul writes in Galatians 1:19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord”

I feel sure that Roman Catholic sources (the Encyclopedia?) would mention this very ancient manner of speaking of Saint James. It is still used in the Orthodox Church but it may have dropped out of use in the Roman Catholic?

Holy Apostle James, Brother of the Lord
and Bishop of Jerusalem, pray for us
http://www.iconarts.com/images/Icon_Gallery/StJames.jpg
[/quote]
 
OK Fr. Ambrose…since I respect, in all humility, your position and expect and as I urge you to respect my position as well…can’t we not set aside the differences and sit down and talk about the glorious days when you and I were one and united? Talk about the same root from where you and I came from? Take that early experience when you and I were one as an inspiration towards the road to unity? You can say that we just cannot set aside those differences because it is from those differences that make us so unique from each other or simply you just cannot compromise, but again…Can’t we not respect each other’s differences and from such respect, build a common ground in unity? In other words, let’s set aside pride and let’s set an example of humility and respect to each other. Now that would be awesome, wouldn’t that be?

PAX
Fr Ambrose:
Rather the same way the Orthodox feel about the Roman Catholics and perhaps even more so about the Eastern Catholic Churches.

However, you can’t have us as “sister churches” AND the “wayward son.” That’s getting a bit too weird 😃
“We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century… Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!”
-Alexis Khomiakov
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top