In what order did each church appear?

[Subrosa]

Hi Fr Ambrose -
Good to hear from you again. I hope all is well.
Fr Ambrose:

Would you be able to substantiate that? Please give the names of the Churches which have been formed as the result of schism from the Orthodox Church over the last 1000 years. I can think of one, the Old Believer schism which is still with with us.

As far as schisms, I was made aware of them on this forum. There was a long thread concerning the Russian Church and it’s American counterpart not that long ago. Here are others…

russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ne302203.htm
english.pravda.ru/cis/2001/10/16/18195_.html
zenit.org/english/archive/0105/ZE010517.htm

I can’t say I know anymore than these, but they serve as examples. Plus, all that I’ve read about are in the Eastern part of Europe, such as Russia or Ukraine. I haven’t heard about any in the Greek church.

Can you supply a corresponding list of all the Churches formed by schism from the Catholic Church over the same period?

Most schisms in the Roman church are from excommunicated bishops…latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm…As far as whole communities splitting off and forming thier own churches, that happened in the reformation, obviously. But I don’t know of any since that time. Although it can be said that Luther was also excommunicated and people followed him. The major difference between the two examples here are: the first wanted to hold to the traditions that were being abandoned with VII, and Luther taught completely different (and heretical) ideas.

I think you will find that the latter Church which claims that it is protected from schism by virtue of having the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is, ironically, the one which has suffered the most schisms.

True, and that is why I mentioned that it would be his challenge to NOT let that happen. It is precisely these past schisms that have given the church it’s most recent history. What good would it do to decentralize, only to have schisms occur? Wouldn’t you say that once people have some authority given them they may want more?

Since before the passing of Pope John Paul II, the church has been debating the issue of decentralizing. As mentioned previously, Lumen Gentium stated this goal, and since then there have been opinions written about it…vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html.

I seems to me that the discussion is going more in a direction of earlier traditions and most people would welcome such action. But, again, what good would it do if it resulted in schisms?

Christus Rex,
Jerry

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Subrosa:

Most schisms in the Roman church are from excommunicated bishops…

There are a large number of still thriving schisms from the Church of Rome which comprehend not just millions of Christians but entire countries.

1. One thinks of the schism from Rome of Martin Luther which created the Lutheran Church - a schism which is now worldwide
2. The schism of Calvin which gave birth to the Reformed Churches and is likewise now worldwide
3. The schism of Henry VIII and the English bishops which created the Anglican Church
4. The schism of the Scottish bishops which created the Scottish Episcopalian Church
5. The schisms of Sweden, Norway, etc.
6. The schism of the Old Catholics
7. The schism of the Polish National Catholic Church
8. The schism of the Patriotic Catholic Church in China
9. The schism of the Lefebvrists and others like them.

There may be more; these are off the top of my head.

The whole history of Roman Catholicism after it ceased to be in communion with Orthodoxy involves some very serious and longlasting schisms. This is why the Orthodoxy have to lift an eyebrow when we are told that the centralising authority of the Papacy is a preventative against schism. History does not bear this out.

---

Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.”
-Jeremiah 6:16

 

[Subrosa]

Fr Ambrose:

There are a large number of still thriving schisms from the Church of Rome which comprehend not just millions of Christians but entire countries.

1. One thinks of the schism from Rome of Martin Luther which created the Lutheran Church - a schism which is now worldwide
2. The schism of Calvin which gave birth to the Reformed Churches and is likewise now worldwide
3. The schism of Henry VIII and the English bishops which created the Anglican Church
4. The schism of the Scottish bishops which created the Scottish Episcopalian Church
5. The schisms of Sweden, Norway, etc.
6. The schism of the Old Catholics
7. The schism of the Polish National Catholic Church
8. The schism of the Patriotic Catholic Church in China
9. The schism of the Lefebvrists and others like them.

There may be more; these are off the top of my head.

The whole history of Roman Catholicism after it ceased to be in communion with Orthodoxy involves some very serious and longlasting schisms. This is why the Orthodoxy have to lift an eyebrow when we are told that the centralising authority of the Papacy is a preventative against schism. History does not bear this out.

It is certain that when people make up thier mind to leave, they do.

So, are you saying that decentralizing will not result in schisms? Or, are schisms inevitable anyway? Should the Pope not be concerned with schisms?

Given the prevailing Catholic Church attitude concerning ecumenism, wouldn’t it be better to keep the flock gathered, so to speak?

And just a small change in subject…Have there been schismatic bishops in Orthodoxy, such as you mentioned above about the Catholic Church?

Jerry

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

The evidence which we have is that our Lord was speaking in Hebrew and quoting the first verse of Psalm 21 (LXX).

His hearers did not understand what he was saying because the Jews of the day spoke Aramaic; Hebrew was a language which they heard only in the synagogues and did not use as an everyday language. That is why they mistakenly thought that he was calling on the holy prophet Elijah.

Nwo, returning to the question of the language of Matthew’s Gospel, don’t you think it is curious that after Matthew writes this verse in a Gospel supposedly written in Aramaic he immediately adds a Greek translation of these words. Why?** Why on earth would he have chosen to translate this one phrase in all of his Aramaic Gospel into Greek? **

1. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Papias all say Metthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Now whether that is the first version, and Greek was the translation, I guess we’re not gonna know because these ECF’s give testimony to something we don’t have a copy of.
2. I would ask your question differently. The fact is, the entire NT was translated into Greek. No one argues that. But since Jesus spoke Aramaic, and He was translated into Greek, why preserve just a few words in Aramaic? MK 5:4, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I think you will find that the latter Church which claims that it is protected from schism by virtue of having the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is, ironically, the one which has suffered the most schisms.

The CC doesn’t claim protection from schism. And you know better than to make the statement. The Church is protected from teaching error in faith and morals.

In Jn:6, the bread of life discourse, Jesus lost over half of His desciples over that teaching. And John says, those desciples never returned.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

There are a large number of still thriving schisms from the Church of Rome which comprehend not just millions of Christians but entire countries.

1. One thinks of the schism from Rome of Martin Luther which created the Lutheran Church - a schism which is now worldwide
2. The schism of Calvin which gave birth to the Reformed Churches and is likewise now worldwide
3. The schism of Henry VIII and the English bishops which created the Anglican Church
4. The schism of the Scottish bishops which created the Scottish Episcopalian Church
5. The schisms of Sweden, Norway, etc.
6. The schism of the Old Catholics
7. The schism of the Polish National Catholic Church
8. The schism of the Patriotic Catholic Church in China
9. The schism of the Lefebvrists and others like them.

There may be more; these are off the top of my head.

The whole history of Roman Catholicism after it ceased to be in communion with Orthodoxy involves some very serious and longlasting schisms. This is why the Orthodoxy have to lift an eyebrow when we are told that the centralising authority of the Papacy is a preventative against schism. History does not bear this out.

---

Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.”
-Jeremiah 6:16

Luther wasn’t the first to break from the Catholic Church. It was the Orthodox. He learned from you. And that opemed the flood gates up for all the other protesters…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Papias all say Metthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Now whether that is the first version, and Greek was the translation, I guess we’re not gonna know because these ECF’s give testimony to something we don’t have a copy of.

Precisely, I agree. The version of Saint Matthew which was canonised as sacred scripture by the Church was the Greek, and only the Greek, Gospel of Saint Matthew.

Whether a Hebrew original existed is a moot point. Either 1) the early Church and the quite large Jewish sector were so incompetent that they simply lost it and all its copies, or 2) they were so indifferent to it that they let it drop out of existence. Neither seems likely given the extraordinary conservatism of the Church and the apostolic mandate to “preserve what we have taught you either by word or by letter.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The CC doesn’t claim protection from schism. And you know better than to make the statement.

It is a claim frequently made on this board. People believe, although history shows otherwise, that the centralised administration of the Church of Rome as well as papal authority are a preventative against schism.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Luther wasn’t the first to break from the Catholic Church. It was the Orthodox. He learned from you. And that opemed the flood gates up for all the other protesters…

Well, the Orthodox see it completely the other way round. We see the bishop of Rome as the first Protestant - as the first man to strike out on his on and say: “I know the truth and have authority to interpret it and I don’t need the Church.” All the later Protestants did was to extend this papal principle to every man: “I know the truth and have authority to interpret it and I don’t need the Church.” In effect all that Protestantism did was to make every man his own Pope.

So the East sees Protestantism as the chicken hatched from the egg which Rome laid.

A brief glance at history shows the the East has been remarkably free from schism over the last millennium. There are simply no grounds for saying that Protestantism was able to look to the East for its schismatic tendancies. Protestantism is purely a child of Rome.

 

[Subrosa]

Fr Ambrose:

Whether a Hebrew original existed is a moot point. Either 1) the early Church and the quite large Jewish sector were so incompetent that they simply lost it and all its copies, or 2) they were so indifferent to it that they let it drop out of existence.

Hi Father Ambrose -

You left one out…The Romans. In the year 66 AD the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroying the temple and leveling the city due to a rebellion that the Jews staged. The streets flowed with blood and the Jews were banned from returning to the city. The Romans subsiquently removed the name Judea from the land and renamed it Palestine, which remains to this day.

The Romans destroyed everything that they could find and tried to erase Judaism, which meant destroying the scrolls, including the original texts of the Apostles, which they considered Jewish. Later, during the Christian persecutions during the reign of Nero and others, the Christian scrolls were destroyed.

We see this in Qumran with the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hidden in order to protect them from the Romans. Those caves are where the Jews sought refuge, along with Masada. Both these refuge encampments failed resulting in the Roman destruction of both these sites and the death of all the Jews involved.

Hope this helps…
Jerry

 

[JohnPaul0]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, the Orthodox see it completely the other way round. We see the bishop of Rome as the first Protestant - as the first man to strike out on his on and say: “I know the truth and have authority to interpret it and I don’t need the Church.” All the later Protestants did was to extend this papal principle to every man: “I know the truth and have authority to interpret it and I don’t need the Church.” In effect all that Protestantism did was to make every man his own Pope.

So the East sees Protestantism as the chicken hatched from the egg which Rome laid.

A brief glance at history shows the the East has been remarkably free from schism over the last millennium. There are simply no grounds for saying that Protestantism was able to look to the East for its schismatic tendancies. Protestantism is purely a child of Rome.

Let’s work with this.

Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Armenian Orthodox
And so on…

Seems to me that there already is division within the Orthodox world.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JohnPaul0:

Let’s work with this.

Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Armenian Orthodox
And so on…

Seems to me that there already is division within the Orthodox world.

Dear John Paul,

The Orthodox Church is composed of a number of Churches, about 18 in today’s world. These are not divisions -each Church is in full dogmatic agreement with the others and there is full intercommunion.

As new Churches are established through the missionary work of their Mother Church they mature and eventually reach the stage where they become adminstratively independent. In such a way the Russian Church evolved into a new Patriarchate, and ditto for the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Greeks (in Greece), etc. The process is in process with Churches such as Japan where it remains semi-dependent on Moscow, its mother Church, but will one day attain full independence.

But all our Churches form one holy Church. There are no divisions.

You can think of it as similar to the structure of the Catholic Church. In this case the Church of Rome is the largest, but there are 21 other Churches in communion with Rome, headed by a Patriarch or some kind of Primate. The difference is that at the top of this Roman system there is the Pope, but at the top of the Orthodox system is Jesus Christ.

 

[JohnPaul0]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear John Paul,

The Orthodox Church is composed of a number of Churches, about 18 in today’s world. These are not divisions -each Church is in full dogmatic agreement with the others and there is full intercommunion.

As new Churches are established through the missionary work of their Mother Church they mature and eventually reach the stage where they become adminstratively independent. In such a way the Russian Church evolved into a new Patriarchate, and ditto for the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Greeks (in Greece), etc. The process is in process with Churches such as Japan where it remains semi-dependent on Moscow, its mother Church, but will one day attain full independence.

But all our Churches form one holy Church. There are no divisions.

You can think of it as similar to the structure of the Catholic Church. In this case the Church of Rome is the largest, but there are 21 other Churches in communion with Rome, headed by a Patriarch or some kind of Primate. The difference is that at the top of this Roman system there is the Pope, but at the top of the Orthodox system is Jesus Christ.

Thanks, Father. I suspected that the Orthodox Churches were united in doctrine (and very closely united to Rome, as you well know!).

Yet, I think that you have raised a point with some meat behind it. Here are more observations:

1. If Protestantism is the result of the “egg which Rome laid” after the Great Schism, then it took a long time for that egg to hatch! 500 years, right? Moreover, even Protestants recognize that the bishop of Rome claimed universal jurisdiction at least 500 years before that.

So, it seems unlikely that the divisions in the West are related to the mere fact of the Pope claiming universal jurisdiction.

Then what could they be related to?

1. As we know, the Orthodox Churches, do fall under national groups. I wonder if one is less likely to break away from his church if, in a sense, it would mean breaking away from his countrymen?
2. Along the same lines, is division just a Western phenomenon? In other words, is the character of Western man such that he likes to go his own way?

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

The evidence which we have is that our Lord was speaking in Hebrew and quoting the first verse of Psalm 21 (LXX).

His hearers did not understand what he was saying because the Jews of the day spoke Aramaic; Hebrew was a language which they heard only in the synagogues and did not use as an everyday language. That is why they mistakenly thought that he was calling on the holy prophet Elijah.

Nwo, returning to the question of the language of Matthew’s Gospel, don’t you think it is curious that after Matthew writes this verse in a Gospel supposedly written in Aramaic he immediately adds a Greek translation of these words. Why? Why on earth would he have chosen to translate this one phrase in all of his Aramaic Gospel into Greek? He was writing for Jews who spoke Aramaic and knew enough written Hebew from the synagogue… why would he have to translate it? For whom? Why would he drop ONE Greek phrase into a Gospel otherwise written entirely in Aramaic?

There you go, Father. As you yourself have pointed it out, Aramaic is the everyday language of the Jews.

Now what verse are you referring to in your third paragraph?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

Now what verse are you referring to in your third paragraph?

Please see
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=646900&postcount=269

I am interested in the reason why the Roman Catholic Church bases part of its claim for Peter as the Rock upon a non-existent Aramaic Gospel which was never canonised by the Church and which may or may not have recorded Christ addressing Peter as “Kepha.”

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Fr Ambrose:

Please see
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=646900&postcount=269

I am interested in the reason why the Roman Catholic Church bases part of its claim for Peter as the Rock upon a non-existent Aramaic Gospel which was never canonised by the Church and which may or may not have recorded Christ addressing Peter as “Kepha.”

“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).” (John 1:42)

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

It is a claim frequently made on this board. People believe, although history shows otherwise, that the centralised administration of the Church of Rome as well as papal authority are a preventative against schism.

Are you sure that what was said is schism and not error?

 

[JohnPaul0]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear John Paul,

The Orthodox Church is composed of a number of Churches, about 18 in today’s world. These are not divisions -each Church is in full dogmatic agreement with the others and there is full intercommunion.

But all our Churches form one holy Church. There are no divisions.

Father, reading back over this topic, I found this post from Subrosa on May 7 that speaks of several schisms within the Orthodox umbrella.

"As far as schisms, I was made aware of them on this forum. There was a long thread concerning the Russian Church and it’s American counterpart not that long ago. Here are others…

russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/ne302203.htm
english.pravda.ru/cis/2001/10/16/18195_.html
zenit.org/english/archive/0105/ZE010517.htm"

These seem to contradict your claim that “But all our Churches form one holy Church. There are no divisions.”

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Fr. Ambrose,

First, Antioch.
Second…Peter not in Rome…
I wonder what’s the next Orthodox opposition?

**Saint Peter in Rome?

**

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, it is still asserted in some quarters that St. Peter was never in Rome, nor was bishop thereof. An objection to St. Peter’s being in Rome is that Paul did not greet Peter in his letter to the Romans. This is not a strong argument against his being there, as the author of Hebrews does not greet the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. In any case, Peter may not have been there at the time. The following is an account of the history of St. Peter from the earliest mention of him in the Acts of the Apostles.

About 34AD ( Acts 2:41), we have an early mention of Peter. Some days later, in Acts 5:19, Peter is freed from prison by an angel. He spends four years in Jerusalem (Acts 8:25). St. Paul arrived at the beginning of Peter’s fourth year (Acts 9:27-28). In the same year Peter (Acts 9:32) went to Joppe, raised Tabitha, and had the linen vision (Acts 10:11-12). After a few days he went to Caesarea (to visit Cornelius - Acts 10:23). He returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:18) for a short time. Then he went to Antioch in Syria (as did Barnabas). This is attested to by Anacletus (Ep. iii), Marcellus (Ep. iii), St. Innocent I (Ep. xiv), St. Damasus in the Pontifical Book, St. Jerome in the “De Viris Illustribus” etc.

Peter?s episcopacy in Antioch lasted seven years (St. Leo, Sermon on Sts. Peter and Paul). Eleven years after the Ascension (the second year of Claudius), Peter went to Rome, first visiting Jerusalem (Acts 12, where he is thrown in prison, then rescued by an angel). The Roman Martyrology records the converts he sent to various parts, e.g. to Sicliy he sent Pancras, Marcian, and Berillus; to Verona he sent Exuperius, etc.

In the seventh year of his Roman pontificate, Claudius expelled all the Jews (and the Christians, who were regarded as a Jewish sect) from Rome. St. Peter returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas came for him over the dispute at Antioch (Acts 15:8). This Council took place in the 10th year of Claudius.

(Paul was converted the year after the Ascension, and went to see Peter in Jerualem in the third year of his conversion (Gal. 1:18); fourteen years later he went again to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1) and attended the Council (Acts 15). So there were eighteen years from the Crucifixion to the Council of Jerusalem, which would be the tenth year of Claudius’ reign.)
Claudius died after a reign of thirteen years, and his four-year edict of expulsion against the Jews died with him. It was during this four-year spell that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans. Nero succeeded, and Christians began returning to Rome (including Aquila and Priscilla). Peter returned to Rome in the first year of Nero’s reign. Two years later Paul joined Peter in Rome as a prisoner. (So how come Paul found the Jews in Rome knew the Christian religiononly by report, if Peter had been there? The solution is that the Jews who had been banished did not return.)

Continue to the next post

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Continue…

Two years later (fourth year of Nero’s reign), Paul, now set free, spent some time in Rome, then left for Spain.

In the tenth year of Nero (22nd year of Peter’s pontificate, 64 AD), Rome was set on fire. Nero blamed the Chrisatians and began a persecution against them the following year.

In the twelfth year of Nero (68AD), Peter, who had been absent for a while, came back to Rome to revive the Church. In this year Perer wrote his second Epistle, in which he foretells his own death (1:14). Nero cast Peter and Paul into the Mamertine prison for nine months. From here Paul wrote his Second Letter to Timothy, requesting he come to Rome to witness his (Paul’s) martyrdom. It was at this tme that Process and Martinian were converted, alomg with 47 others.
In ~68-69AD, in the 25th year of Peter’s pontificate in Rome, Peter and Paul were sentenced to death.

This simple sketch should explain any difficulties which arise, e.g., how Peter could have been seven years at Antioch and twenty-five years Bishop of Rome, and yet be in Jerusalem in the 4th, 11th and 18th year after Our Lord’s Ascension, as inferred from the Epistle to the Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles.

That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome is testified by:

• Eusebius, Chronicon, 74
• St. Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 3.
• Dorotheus, In Synopsis.
• St. Augustine, Epistola 53 and Contra Epistolam Fundamenti, ch. 4, title 8; in chapter 5 he writes: “I am kept in the church by the succession of Bishops from St. Peter, to whom the Lord committed the care of His sheep down to the present Bishop.”

That St. Peter died in Rome is testifed by:

• St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.
• Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.
• Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.
• St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.
• Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.
• St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

Reference: “Catholic Belief” di Bruno, (Burns & Oates, London, 1880)
Fr Ambrose:

Facts about Peter and his time in Rome:

1. Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem at 44 AD so how was he present in Rome at that time?!
2. **Clodius Caesar **exiled all the Jews and the Christians from Rome at 45 AD, and the book of Acts made reference to this event (Acts 18:2). So it is again impossible for Peter to be in Rome then.
3. In 50 AD, he attended the apostles council in Jerusalem, so it was impossible for him to be in Rome then.
4. St. Paul wrote to the Romans in 57-58 AD asking to be given a chance to reach them and teach them about God. This is a proof that Peter did not preach the Romans in Rome, otherwise Paul wouldn’t have asked to be given a chance to go.
5. In 58 AD when Paul sent his epistle to Rome, he greeted 20 people, and 2 families, and the name of Peter was not among them which means that he (Peter ) was not there at that time.
6. When St. Paul reached Rome at 60 AD, the Book did not tell us that he met with Peter, but rather Paul met the leaders of the Jews… thus proving that Peter did not preach them with the Lord Jesus.
7. St. Paul stayed in Rome for two years after preaching the Romans, (62/63 AD) meaning that if Peter reached Rome then, the church of Rome was founded, established and was strong by the works of the Holy Spirit and Paul.
8. Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St. Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer, who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.