A
alyssa
Guest
There is a really neat chart somewhere online of the Church, and at what point others have broken off and whatnot. I have not been able to find it- do any of you have the link? Thanks!
- Status
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
A
alyssa
Guest
That’s close enough to what I needed- thank you Fr. Ambrose 
M
Mary3
Guest
Here’s a timeline using Roman Catholicism as the trunk of the tree, with the Orthodox breaking away at the Great Schism in 1054:
catholicapologetics.org/ap021200.htm
catholicapologetics.org/ap021200.htm
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Notice something very telling.
For the first one thousand years every single important event -all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church- took place in the East under the auspices of the Patriarch of Constantinople. No Pope ever attended one of these Councils. Most times he sent a delegate or two but not always.
It was not until 1123 -with the Council of Lateran I in Rome- that the Roman Catholic Church called a Council in Rome itself !!!
Alyssa, I should point out, in case you don’t already know, that I am not a Roman Catholic, but Orthodox.
M
Mary3
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
I’m confused. The Council of Jerusalem in AD50 was in the West, and St. Peter was there.
P
pnewton
Guest
If these two timelines can be resolved, maybe we can forward the results to Rome telling them we have healed the split. How does St. Fr. Ambrose sound?
Until then, we are left with the oft disputed primacy of the papcy issue.
Until then, we are left with the oft disputed primacy of the papcy issue.
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Father Ambrose:
Sorry, but your exhibit is not “telling” at all.
(1) First, you EO’s have no definite criterion for what makes a council “ecumenical”. I note that there is no universal agreement that the councils that you promote as ecumenical were in fact so. Thus, you EO’s. like the Protestants with their self-authenticating Canon of Scripture, also have a self-authenticating Canon of Ecumenical Councils. This is a logical as well as an historical and theological contradiction, and indeed a little closer inspection is that you EO’s are as befuddled on this issue as you are on many others.
(2) Your claim that “every single important event – all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church” occurred in the East presupposes the very point you are trying to prove. Moreover, it testifies as much to the common state of disorder in the Eastern Church of the time as a result of the great heresies as it does to any Eastern prominence in theology. I must point out that these “heresies” and their associated political ferment (which latter was always the impetus for holding the councils) were as much the result of Eastern nationalism and Greek ethnocentrism as they were of doctrinal heterodoxy. Seen in this light it is the West’s doctrinal serenity that rather recommends itself to Christians!
(3) It is not at all true that the Eastern ecumenical councils were “all held under the auspices of the Patriarch of Constantinople”. Say rather that they were held under the Emperor’s “auspices”, and that his motives were more political than theological. The first, that of Nicaea, was called before Constantinople was a patriarchate; at least the second, Constantinople I, was called as a local council and only became ecumenical when later accepted by Rome; the third, Ephesus in 431, which condemned Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople, was certainly not held under his “auspices”, but rather was presided over by Cyril of Alexandria acting for Pope Celestine; the fourth, Chalcedon, was presided over by the Roman legates Paschasinus et al.; if your fifth and sixth and seventh ecumenical councils (553 and 681 and 787) were held under Constantinople’s “auspices” this would be unremarkable, since Constantinople, after the departure of the greater part of the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria after 451 had left Greek Constantinople and its creature Jerusalem as the rump of the Eastern Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople as always was the Emperor’s man, and the Emperor had called these councils to bring peace to his Empire; your “Quinisext Council in Trullo” of 692 was not an ecumenical council at all, nor was it a “continuation” of the fifth or sixth ecumenical councils; the council in Constantinople in 879-880 called the “eighth ecumenical” by some EO’s is not only not accepted by Rome, but is not even accepted by most EO’s, so Constantinople’s “auspices” with regard to it seem to me to be obvious chicanery. So much for the “auspices” of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
(4) You know full well that there is no reason why the Pope should be present at a council. The custom has always been that he does not attend, but normally sends legates. The bare minimum necessary for a council to be ecumenical, however, is that Rome accept it as such, and this acceptance is also necessary for each individual decree of any council. This Catholic criterion for the ecumenicity of any council is consistent and logical, while the apparent EO criteria are inconsistent and self-contradictory (if indeed one can elicit any definite criteria on this point from EO’s at all !).
(5) No, the EO churches now lack the necessary organ for determining the ecumenicity of a council or for defining orthodox doctrine that their distant Catholic ancestors had. This organ is the Roman Primacy. In their current schism from Rome they are thus substantially different from what they were before the schism. Then they had doctrinal certainty, now they do not.
I trust all this will put to rest your empty assertion, Father.
Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:
Sorry, but your exhibit is not “telling” at all.
(1) First, you EO’s have no definite criterion for what makes a council “ecumenical”. I note that there is no universal agreement that the councils that you promote as ecumenical were in fact so. Thus, you EO’s. like the Protestants with their self-authenticating Canon of Scripture, also have a self-authenticating Canon of Ecumenical Councils. This is a logical as well as an historical and theological contradiction, and indeed a little closer inspection is that you EO’s are as befuddled on this issue as you are on many others.
(2) Your claim that “every single important event – all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church” occurred in the East presupposes the very point you are trying to prove. Moreover, it testifies as much to the common state of disorder in the Eastern Church of the time as a result of the great heresies as it does to any Eastern prominence in theology. I must point out that these “heresies” and their associated political ferment (which latter was always the impetus for holding the councils) were as much the result of Eastern nationalism and Greek ethnocentrism as they were of doctrinal heterodoxy. Seen in this light it is the West’s doctrinal serenity that rather recommends itself to Christians!
(3) It is not at all true that the Eastern ecumenical councils were “all held under the auspices of the Patriarch of Constantinople”. Say rather that they were held under the Emperor’s “auspices”, and that his motives were more political than theological. The first, that of Nicaea, was called before Constantinople was a patriarchate; at least the second, Constantinople I, was called as a local council and only became ecumenical when later accepted by Rome; the third, Ephesus in 431, which condemned Nestorius the Patriarch of Constantinople, was certainly not held under his “auspices”, but rather was presided over by Cyril of Alexandria acting for Pope Celestine; the fourth, Chalcedon, was presided over by the Roman legates Paschasinus et al.; if your fifth and sixth and seventh ecumenical councils (553 and 681 and 787) were held under Constantinople’s “auspices” this would be unremarkable, since Constantinople, after the departure of the greater part of the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria after 451 had left Greek Constantinople and its creature Jerusalem as the rump of the Eastern Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople as always was the Emperor’s man, and the Emperor had called these councils to bring peace to his Empire; your “Quinisext Council in Trullo” of 692 was not an ecumenical council at all, nor was it a “continuation” of the fifth or sixth ecumenical councils; the council in Constantinople in 879-880 called the “eighth ecumenical” by some EO’s is not only not accepted by Rome, but is not even accepted by most EO’s, so Constantinople’s “auspices” with regard to it seem to me to be obvious chicanery. So much for the “auspices” of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
(4) You know full well that there is no reason why the Pope should be present at a council. The custom has always been that he does not attend, but normally sends legates. The bare minimum necessary for a council to be ecumenical, however, is that Rome accept it as such, and this acceptance is also necessary for each individual decree of any council. This Catholic criterion for the ecumenicity of any council is consistent and logical, while the apparent EO criteria are inconsistent and self-contradictory (if indeed one can elicit any definite criteria on this point from EO’s at all !).
(5) No, the EO churches now lack the necessary organ for determining the ecumenicity of a council or for defining orthodox doctrine that their distant Catholic ancestors had. This organ is the Roman Primacy. In their current schism from Rome they are thus substantially different from what they were before the schism. Then they had doctrinal certainty, now they do not.
I trust all this will put to rest your empty assertion, Father.
Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Alyssa:
I believe the chart you want is at this address:
catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/10832.html. It comes together with a booklet called The Triumph of the Church, with Historical Chart. The chart is even suitable for framing.
Regards,
Joannes
alyssa:
I believe the chart you want is at this address:
catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/10832.html. It comes together with a booklet called The Triumph of the Church, with Historical Chart. The chart is even suitable for framing.
Regards,
Joannes
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Alyssa:
I believe the chart you want is at this address:
catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/10832.html. It comes together with a booklet called The Triumph of the Church, with Historical Chart. The chart is even suitable for framing.
Regards,
Joannes
alyssa:
I believe the chart you want is at this address:
catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/10832.html. It comes together with a booklet called The Triumph of the Church, with Historical Chart. The chart is even suitable for framing.
Regards,
Joannes
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Jerusalem is slightly more to the East than Nicea or Constantinople (Istanbul) or Chalcedon where the Seven Ecumenical Councils were held.
Yes, Saint Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem, but Saint James presided and announced its decisions.
P
pnewton
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
St. Peter picked a good man for the job!
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Explain why NO Ecumenical Council was held in the West for the first 1000 years of the Church’s existence. The Councils which defined our most fundamental doctrines did not take place in Rome but under the Greeks.
If Rome were acknowledged as the centre of unity, the place where the successor of Peter resided, why were no Councils held there. Would it not have been the logical place to convene the bishops?
If the Pope were accepted as the one bishop who was infallible in doctrine, why were no Councils called by him, in his city, at the chair of Peter? Why did he not even attend the Ecumenical Councils?
These facts demonstrate that Rome and the Pope were not the centre point of the Church during the first millennium.
It is only later, when Rome left the Universal Church, that it begins to summon its own Councils in Rome, beginning with the First Lateran Council in 1123.
Joannes:
If Rome were acknowledged as the centre of unity, the place where the successor of Peter resided, why were no Councils held there. Would it not have been the logical place to convene the bishops?
If the Pope were accepted as the one bishop who was infallible in doctrine, why were no Councils called by him, in his city, at the chair of Peter? Why did he not even attend the Ecumenical Councils?
These facts demonstrate that Rome and the Pope were not the centre point of the Church during the first millennium.
It is only later, when Rome left the Universal Church, that it begins to summon its own Councils in Rome, beginning with the First Lateran Council in 1123.
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Father Ambrose:
No, it was St. Peter, not St. James, that presided at the Council of Jerusalem. He announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). James, of course, and John, Paul tells us, were “pillars” of the Church, and James as bishop of Jerusalem was minding the store in Jerusalem while the others traveled, but there is no evidence that James rather than Peter chaired the Council.
You EO’s, just like Protestants, try to make this stick as a way of downgrading Peter’s primacy, but James role in Scripture is nothing like Peter’s. You know this very well, I’m sure.
Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:
No, it was St. Peter, not St. James, that presided at the Council of Jerusalem. He announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). James, of course, and John, Paul tells us, were “pillars” of the Church, and James as bishop of Jerusalem was minding the store in Jerusalem while the others traveled, but there is no evidence that James rather than Peter chaired the Council.
You EO’s, just like Protestants, try to make this stick as a way of downgrading Peter’s primacy, but James role in Scripture is nothing like Peter’s. You know this very well, I’m sure.
Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Father Ambrose:
Ecumenical councils can be held anywhere, and in the first millenium when travel was arduous it made sense to hold them where they were needed: this was, of course, the East, where the great heresies threatened. Furthermore, it pleased the Emperor, who after all wanted peace in his Empire, to hold them near his capital, and it no doubt also pleased the Eastern bishops, who didn’t have to travel to a council in the far-off West, which was not much troubled by heresies, as you know. Let St. Gregory Nazianzen explain why this perhaps was true: “The faith of Rome was of old, and still is now, right, binding the whole West by the saving word, as is just in her, who presided over all, reverencing the whole harmonious teaching of God.” (Migne, PG 37:1067).
It is no judgment on Rome’s primacy that the first ecumenical councils were held in the East: the East was, after all, the only surviving part of the Roman Empire, the Empire which the Greeks termed the “Oikumene” (=“the civilized world”) even as it grew smaller and smaller. Hence the name “ecumenical”. I have no hesitation in saying that the ecumenical councils always loomed larger in the East than they did in the West, where Rome was close rather than far away, and where reverence for Elder Rome meant that ecumenical councils were not needed. Furthermore, Rome or someplace else in the West during much of the Middle Ages would not have been a good site for a council. The tradition was that the Pope did not attend ecumenical councils, but usually sent legates and then approved or quashed or amended the conciliar decrees at his leisure.
If by “centre point of the Church” you mean the Roman Primacy, then I say that you are dead wrong. There is plenty of patristic and conciliar evidence of the Roman Primacy that was one of supremacy, and if such a Primacy had not existed then there would not have been any recognizable, locatable Church, but only a heap of dioceses – a heap not unlike your present-day league of 16+ autocephalous EO churches, come to think of it ! So, for there to have been one Church in the first millenium thare had to be a Primacy, a center of unity; there is no contestant for this role save Rome. “For with this church (Rome),” says St. Irenaeus, “on account of her more powerful headship every church must agree, I mean, the clergy and faithful of the whole world.”
So, given the fact of the Roman Primacy, how can you EO’s smugly charge that Rome “left the Universal Church”? The charge is laughable. You can’t even point to a decision of YOUR post-Schism churches about this – you appear simply to have dreamed it up! And if you had such a decision (it would have to have come from an ecumenical council, mind you, and how could you have such a council without Rome?) it would tell against you EO’s rather than Rome, since the testimony of the first millenium is clearly that orthodoxy is with Rome, not with any of the Eastern patriarchates, all of whom were in heresy many times, several patriarchates often being heretical at the same time and even for several years. Some record for orthodoxy the East had without Rome!
Well, enough of this for now. I’ve made my point.
Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:
Ecumenical councils can be held anywhere, and in the first millenium when travel was arduous it made sense to hold them where they were needed: this was, of course, the East, where the great heresies threatened. Furthermore, it pleased the Emperor, who after all wanted peace in his Empire, to hold them near his capital, and it no doubt also pleased the Eastern bishops, who didn’t have to travel to a council in the far-off West, which was not much troubled by heresies, as you know. Let St. Gregory Nazianzen explain why this perhaps was true: “The faith of Rome was of old, and still is now, right, binding the whole West by the saving word, as is just in her, who presided over all, reverencing the whole harmonious teaching of God.” (Migne, PG 37:1067).
It is no judgment on Rome’s primacy that the first ecumenical councils were held in the East: the East was, after all, the only surviving part of the Roman Empire, the Empire which the Greeks termed the “Oikumene” (=“the civilized world”) even as it grew smaller and smaller. Hence the name “ecumenical”. I have no hesitation in saying that the ecumenical councils always loomed larger in the East than they did in the West, where Rome was close rather than far away, and where reverence for Elder Rome meant that ecumenical councils were not needed. Furthermore, Rome or someplace else in the West during much of the Middle Ages would not have been a good site for a council. The tradition was that the Pope did not attend ecumenical councils, but usually sent legates and then approved or quashed or amended the conciliar decrees at his leisure.
If by “centre point of the Church” you mean the Roman Primacy, then I say that you are dead wrong. There is plenty of patristic and conciliar evidence of the Roman Primacy that was one of supremacy, and if such a Primacy had not existed then there would not have been any recognizable, locatable Church, but only a heap of dioceses – a heap not unlike your present-day league of 16+ autocephalous EO churches, come to think of it ! So, for there to have been one Church in the first millenium thare had to be a Primacy, a center of unity; there is no contestant for this role save Rome. “For with this church (Rome),” says St. Irenaeus, “on account of her more powerful headship every church must agree, I mean, the clergy and faithful of the whole world.”
So, given the fact of the Roman Primacy, how can you EO’s smugly charge that Rome “left the Universal Church”? The charge is laughable. You can’t even point to a decision of YOUR post-Schism churches about this – you appear simply to have dreamed it up! And if you had such a decision (it would have to have come from an ecumenical council, mind you, and how could you have such a council without Rome?) it would tell against you EO’s rather than Rome, since the testimony of the first millenium is clearly that orthodoxy is with Rome, not with any of the Eastern patriarchates, all of whom were in heresy many times, several patriarchates often being heretical at the same time and even for several years. Some record for orthodoxy the East had without Rome!
Well, enough of this for now. I’ve made my point.
Regards,
Joannes
Fr Ambrose:
P
pnewton
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
While history is important, I have seen historical evidence on both of the East-West controversy, but I know of no other apostle that Jesus established as the rock upon which hie church would be built.
Why not? Catholics do not base the doctrine of Petrine supremecy on where councils are held or who was in attendance. I believe in this dogma because of the words of Jesus. Jesus’ words always trumps history, while history only defines the current thinking at the time.
While history is important, I have seen historical evidence on both of the East-West controversy, but I know of no other apostle that Jesus established as the rock upon which hie church would be built.
R
RBushlow
Guest
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 about 4,000 years ago.
If you are a 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.
If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded about 4,000 years ago.
If you are a 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.
- Status