List of the Churches and the Apostles who founded them

[Hesychios]

I won’t dispute that the Christian community in Jerusalem may have survived, but I should make note of one thing about St Helena: in the Syriac Tradition, the she was led to the location of the True Cross by Jews.

Wow.

That would be even more remarkable, considering that it was the Jews who were specifically banned from the city, while Greek and Syrian Christians would presumably not have been banned.

 

[malphono]

Wow.

That would be even more remarkable, considering that it was the Jews who were specifically banned from the city, while Greek and Syrian Christians would presumably not have been banned.

Whether it’s true on not I, of course, don’t know, (I’m old but not that old!), but I can say that it is included in the Syriac prayers for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

In any case, the Jews were banished at the time of the sacking of Jerusalem (AD 70 +/-) and I believe Hagia Helena went in 325 (or thereabouts). By that time, some Jews would likely have publicly resurfaced.

 

[CDNowak]

Off the top of my head:

Rome: Sts Peter and Paul
Constantinople: St. Andrew
Antioch: St. Peter
Alexandria: St. Mark
Jerusalem: St. James
Moscow: St. Andrew (claimed through Constantinople)
Georgia: St. Andrew

I would assume Ethiopia claims St. Mark through Alexandria, however that is just a guess.

Ethiopia claims St Phillip the Evangelist (the deacon not the Apostle) by way of the eunuch in Acts 8.

 

[melekali]

Off the top of my head:

Rome: Sts Peter and Paul

I would offer for your consideration that Paul did not found the Church at Rome. His letter there shows that church was there long before Paul went there in chains.

 

[melekali]

The strong argument here is that the church of Jerusalem (present) is not the same Ancient Church of Jerusalem before, In 68AD, the whole church of Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Christians fled elsewhere, There was a time that the Ancient Jerusalem church didn’t exist anymore, Jerusalem’s name was even replaced by Ælia, When the Christians was able to return to AElia, the church was re-established and was even subject to the Bishop of Cæsarea, It was only in the First Ecumenical council that it was given honour, and later became patriarchate. The only ancient Churches recognized during the 3rd Century are, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, the others are ‘second tier’ in comparison.

Therefore we can say that the Church of Jerusalem was re-founded

So then you wouldn’t consider the see of Canterbury to be a major see?

 

[Vico]

There is no written or tradition that can be traced regarding this information until before the 6th or 8th century. It was criticized as a fabrication by many.

A possible scenario was St. Andrew ordained St. Stachys as a bishop then he (stachys) went to byzantium and founded the church as the Lord has commanded to preach the gospel to all nations. Also the ordination of St. Stachys as a bishop by St. Andrew, still has no basis on tradition, it is also possible that he was ordained by another bishop.

There is a tradition of Saint Andrew the apostle as a patron saint of Byzantine Churches and also a legend that he visited Scythia, which later became the Ukraine.

 

[Matariel]

I would offer for your consideration that Paul did not found the Church at Rome. His letter there shows that church was there long before Paul went there in chains.

Well, the bishopric there succeeded from St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, but ancient tradition does suggest that St. Paul assisted Peter in the initial setting-up of the Church there, which, because of Peter’s office, was the principle church within the Catholic Church “which presided in love” over all the others.

But yes, statements by the Church Fathers suggest St. Paul helped St. Peter set the Church up there.

 

[Hesychios]

I would offer for your consideration that Paul did not found the Church at Rome. His letter there shows that church was there long before Paul went there in chains.

Rome is a good example of how confusing this issue can be.

Paul wrote that letter probably when Peter was in Antioch. Peter, whom he knew personally, was not greeted with the others.

But more importantly, there was already a Christian community in Rome that had been expelled in 48AD (? not sure) by the emperor Claudius. Paul met Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth and these two had already come from Rome.

The point is, someone established the seminal Roman community before Peter and Paul came together there. No one knows who that may have been for sure.

 

[Madaglan]

Rome is a good example of how confusing this issue can be.

Paul wrote that letter probably when Peter was in Antioch. Peter, whom he knew personally, was not greeted with the others.

But more importantly, there was already a Christian community in Rome that had been expelled in 48AD (? not sure) by the emperor Claudius. Paul met Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth and these two had already come from Rome.

The point is, someone established the seminal Roman community before Peter and Paul came together there. No one knows who that may have been for sure.

Probably a disciple originally from the Greek seaport of Byzantium.

 

[Nine_Two]

Ethiopia claims St Phillip the Evangelist (the deacon not the Apostle) by way of the eunuch in Acts 8.

Thanks for the info on that. It makes sense and now that I think about it I think I might have heard that before.

 

[Nine_Two]

Whether it’s true on not I, of course, don’t know, (I’m old but not that old!), but I can say that it is included in the Syriac prayers for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

In any case, the Jews were banished at the time of the sacking of Jerusalem (AD 70 +/-) and I believe Hagia Helena went in 325 (or thereabouts). By that time, some Jews would likely have publicly resurfaced.

As far as I’m aware their banishment was never lifted.

Also a bit odd that they might resurface, but you don’t think the Christian community would.

 

[StRaphael]

There is a tradition of Saint Andrew the apostle as a patron saint of Byzantine Churches and also a legend that he visited Scythia, which later became the Ukraine.

When The idea of apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the apostle Andrew returns to the university library, I will report on what Fr. Francis Dvornik of happy memory says regarding the antiquity and credibility of these traditions, and will probably start a new thread to discuss the merits of Fr. Dvornik’s arguments. In the meantime I don’t know any details beyond the information in the Catholic Culture article I linked to.

God bless you and yours!

 

[marlo]

it was founded by st. augustine and not the apostles, please see the topic above

So then you wouldn’t consider the see of Canterbury to be a major see?

 

[melekali]

Rome is a good example of how confusing this issue can be.

Paul wrote that letter probably when Peter was in Antioch. Peter, whom he knew personally, was not greeted with the others.

But more importantly, there was already a Christian community in Rome that had been expelled in 48AD (? not sure) by the emperor Claudius. Paul met Priscilla and Aquila in Corinth and these two had already come from Rome.

The point is, someone established the seminal Roman community before Peter and Paul came together there. No one knows who that may have been for sure.

Right. Thanks for the confirmation. While tradition may state that Paul helped Peter “setup” the Christian community in Rome, perhaps it may be better said that they increased and perhaps organized that church.

 

[melekali]

it was founded by st. augustine and not the apostles, please see the topic above

I haven’t seen any posts about the See of Canterbury. Can you point to the post number, please? Thanks.

 

[macaronte]

Cursilista wrote:
"We are closer to being in full communion with our eastern orthrodox brothers than we are with our protestant brethen."

Cursilista, do not forget that eastern orthodox churches are our sister churches [they are apostolic churches like we are]. Unfortunately, protestant churches are not sister churches; they were born out of heretical teachings. For that reason I can’t consider any protestant follower a “Christian” brethren of mine.

–macaronte

 

[macaronte]

St Augustine of Canterbury and St Augustine of Hippo were two different persons.
St Augustine of Canterbury was the apostle of the English [Born ca. 600]
St Augustine of Hippo was the bishop of Hippo [Born ca. 350]

 

[Vico]

Cursilista wrote:
"We are closer to being in full communion with our eastern orthrodox brothers than we are with our protestant brethen."

Cursilista, do not forget that eastern orthodox churches are our sister churches [they are apostolic churches like we are]. Unfortunately, protestant churches are not sister churches; they were born out of heretical teachings. For that reason I can’t consider any protestant follower a “Christian” brethren of mine.

–macaronte

I can understand this, because in the Reformation of the 16th century the understanding of the church is grounded not on the eucharist but primarily on the Word of God.

The Doctrine of Faith clarified the issue in Dominus Iesus:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[macaronte]

Cursilista wrote:
“I can understand this, because in the Reformation of the 16th century the understanding of the church is grounded not on the eucharist but primarily on the Word of God”.​

Christ’s power and authority were given to the Apostles and thru them to their succesors only. Therefore, the authority to bind and loosen in Heaven and on Earth was given to the CHURCH founded by Christ. Kephas was given the KEYS and the Great Commission was given to the Twelve Apostles only… it was not given to Martin Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Melanchton, etc. The Magisterium belongs to the Church that Christ founded on the Apostles. Its is not Sola Scriptura Alone. Whatever happened to Apostolic Traditions? Trashing the Holy Eucharist is a mortal sin… I consider it a sin against the Holy Spirit. I can’t accept a protestant as a “Christian” brethrens; I consider them God’s children but not “Christian” brethrens. I hope I’m not being too severe.

 

[Vico]

Cursilista wrote:
“I can understand this, because in the Reformation of the 16th century the understanding of the church is grounded not on the eucharist but primarily on the Word of God”.
…

Actually I wrote that, expressing understanding of the logic of your statement in your post Mar 17, '10 11:37 pm.