These are the only Churches back then?

[JohnB445]

Its a hard study because there are different versions of history. Even my professor taught it differently.

The way my professor taught it. There was only one Church, the Catholic Church which started with apostle Peter, then Christianity was allowed in Rome by Constantine. The Churches in the East rejected the Pope and had a Schism 1054.

The way I learned it myself:
There were East and West Churches simultaneously, with different theological, political, and hierarchal influences. There were 2 minor schisms, with the Nestorians (Hypostatic Union), and the Chalcedon (Not even sure what happened). As time grew the tensions of East and West grew, the concept of a Pope didn't fly with the East neither did some teachings so finally, they had a schism in 1054.

So the 4 major Churches from the 11th century, are Assyrian Church (Nestorians), Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholicism.

 

[EJ M]

In 1558, Cardinal Hosius wrote thus,
Let a catholic reply, the president of the famous council of Trent. "If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run before all other heretics. If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all others, if they were not grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution for these past 1,200 years. If you have an eye to the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and Zuinglians must needs grant that they far pass them.
"If you will be moved by the boasting of the word of God, these be no less bold than Calvin to preach, and their doctrine must stand aloft above all the glory of the world, must stand invincible above all power, because it is not their word, but the word of the living God. Neither do they cry with less boldness than Luther, that with their doctrine, which is the word of God, they shall judge the angels. And surely, how many soever have written against this heresy, whether they were Catholics or heretics [reformers], they were able to overthrow it, not so much by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authority of the church."
These quotations are all taken from Hosius' Latin work "Verae, christianae catholicaeque doctrinae solida propugnatio," first published in Cologne in 1558

 

[HTacianas]

Its a hard study because there are different versions of history. Even my professor taught it differently.

The way my professor taught it. There was only one Church, the Catholic Church which started with apostle Peter, then Christianity was allowed in Rome by Constantine. The Churches in the East rejected the Pope and had a Schism 1054.

The way I learned it myself:
There were East and West Churches simultaneously, with different theological, political, and hierarchal influences. There were 2 minor schisms, with the Nestorians (Hypostatic Union), and the Chalcedon (Not even sure what happened). As time grew the tensions of East and West grew, the concept of a Pope didn't fly with the East neither did some teachings so finally, they had a schism in 1054.

So the 4 major Churches from the 11th century, are Assyrian Church (Nestorians), Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholicism.

Your own view is the most accurate from a purely historical perspective. A lot of people believe what you heard from your professor, mostly because of the protestant/Catholic rift in the West. There's a popular idea that there was the Catholic Church and protestants left out of it. The Orthodox Church is actually relatively unknown by the average layman in the West.

 

[HTacianas]

In 1558, Cardinal Hosius wrote thus,
Let a catholic reply, the president of the famous council of Trent. "If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run before all other heretics. If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all others, if they were not grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution for these past 1,200 years. If you have an eye to the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and Zuinglians must needs grant that they far pass them.
"If you will be moved by the boasting of the word of God, these be no less bold than Calvin to preach, and their doctrine must stand aloft above all the glory of the world, must stand invincible above all power, because it is not their word, but the word of the living God. Neither do they cry with less boldness than Luther, that with their doctrine, which is the word of God, they shall judge the angels. And surely, how many soever have written against this heresy, whether they were Catholics or heretics [reformers], they were able to overthrow it, not so much by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authority of the church."
These quotations are all taken from Hosius' Latin work "Verae, christianae catholicaeque doctrinae solida propugnatio," first published in Cologne in 1558

That quote is not accurate. It's been grossly embellished.

 

[EJ M]

Seems like Cardinal Hosius, president of the council of Trent writes of an Anabaptist church for 1,200 years prior to 1558.
And estimates Anabaptists would be more numerous than Protestants if they would not have been slaughtered for the past 1,200 years.

 

[EJ M]

That quote is not accurate. It's been grossly embellished.

Evedence?
Being unable to read Latin I cannot guarantee the quote is accurate, however Richard Shacklock translated Hosius' work into English as "The Hatchet of Heresies"
I'm guessing the translation is accurate.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The reason for those splits goes pretty deep in a lot of cases. Parsing every single thing out is difficult to do (as you seem to have discovered) but many of the doctrinal differences aren't as significant as you might think.

It's fascinating history to study but it's also very easy to get lost in the fine details.

 

[HTacianas]

Evedence?
Being unable to read Latin I cannot guarantee the quote is accurate, however Richard Shacklock translated Hosius' work into English as "The Hatchet of Heresies"
I'm guessing the translation is accurate.

That quote comes from The Trail of Blood, a book written by a Baptist preacher in the 1930s, ostensibly to prove that the baptist church existed from the first century. To prove his point he took every known heresy in the history of the Church and renamed them "baptists" to create the impression that the baptists had been around that long and had been persecuted by the Church.

It's an outright falsehood. One of the most dishonest parts of the book is the "1200 year" embellishment of Hosius to make it seem that the Anabaptists had been around for that long. They hadn't.

 

[bcbsr]

Its a hard study because there are different versions of history. Even my professor taught it differently.

The way my professor taught it. There was only one Church, the Catholic Church which started with apostle Peter, then Christianity was allowed in Rome by Constantine. The Churches in the East rejected the Pope and had a Schism 1054.

The way I learned it myself:
There were East and West Churches simultaneously, with different theological, political, and hierarchal influences. There were 2 minor schisms, with the Nestorians (Hypostatic Union), and the Chalcedon (Not even sure what happened). As time grew the tensions of East and West grew, the concept of a Pope didn't fly with the East neither did some teachings so finally, they had a schism in 1054.

So the 4 major Churches from the 11th century, are Assyrian Church (Nestorians), Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholicism.

Actually the apostle Peter played very little role in starting churches, He and the other apostles but for Paul stayed in Jerusalem, shirking Jesus command to go out. The Eleven restricted themselves to the Jews. "They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Paul was the guy who established most churches, along with some others who weren't apostles. I don't know why people make such a big deal about Peter. I'm not impressed with his performance.

There is one Church. But it's not an institution. It's the body of Christ made up of all genuine believers. Institutional churches may contain posers, pretenders to the faith, and even heretics. Thus institutional churches are not of themselves the body of Christ. But as for the early institutional churches, they were primarily house churches more participatory, less formal and less liturgical or ceremonial than what passes for "churches" today.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There is one Church. But it's not an institution. It's the body of Christ made up of all genuine believers. Institutional churches may contain posers, pretenders to the faith, and even heretics. Thus institutional churches are not of themselves the body of Christ. But as for the early institutional churches, they were primarily house churches more participatory, less formal and less liturgical or ceremonial than what passes for "churches" today.

Except we see an institutional character in the Church from the Apostles on wards. Not an anarchic liberty to erect churches or establish congregations on the whim of one's personal feelings.

Apostles were institutional inasmuch as they were the final ecclesiastical authority. They set in place leaders over the local Churches and one could not reasonably expect to be considered in communion with the Apostles if you established yourself outside of their jurisdiction. Churches were not independent of each other, they were accountable to each other and we know this because Paul collected money for the sake of the Church at Jerusalem and he exercised pastoral authority despite not being personally present.

 

[TuxAme]

In 1558, Cardinal Hosius wrote thus,
Let a catholic reply, the president of the famous council of Trent. "If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run before all other heretics. If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all others, if they were not grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution for these past 1,200 years. If you have an eye to the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and Zuinglians must needs grant that they far pass them.
"If you will be moved by the boasting of the word of God, these be no less bold than Calvin to preach, and their doctrine must stand aloft above all the glory of the world, must stand invincible above all power, because it is not their word, but the word of the living God. Neither do they cry with less boldness than Luther, that with their doctrine, which is the word of God, they shall judge the angels. And surely, how many soever have written against this heresy, whether they were Catholics or heretics [reformers], they were able to overthrow it, not so much by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authority of the church."
These quotations are all taken from Hosius' Latin work "Verae, christianae catholicaeque doctrinae solida propugnatio," first published in Cologne in 1558

This copy and paste business is getting old.

 

[TuxAme]

Actually the apostle Peter played very little role in starting churches, He and the other apostles but for Paul stayed in Jerusalem, shirking Jesus command to go out. The Eleven restricted themselves to the Jews. "They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal 2:9 Paul was the guy who established most churches, along with some others who weren't apostles. I don't know why people make such a big deal about Peter. I'm not impressed with his performance.

Why would Peter have had to be the one establishing churches (little "c"- in other words, parishes) in order for Peter's office to be what the Catholic Church asserts, when that's not even the business of the Pope today?

There is one Church. But it's not an institution. It's the body of Christ made up of all genuine believers. Institutional churches may contain posers, pretenders to the faith, and even heretics. Thus institutional churches are not of themselves the body of Christ. But as for the early institutional churches, they were primarily house churches more participatory, less formal and less liturgical or ceremonial than what passes for "churches" today.

Jesus founded an institutional Church with Peter as its first head. Jesus Himself told Peter to feed his sheep- He gave this command to Peter only, so we must acknowledge that there is something here being told to Peter that isn't for the others. St. John Chrysostom acknowledges this in his treatise on the priesthood when he says, "For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors." Again, this is something which even Chrysostom offers is unique to Peter, who has successors. Why would it be important to have successors to yourself if you aren't part of a visible entity? Why would the apostles have even laid on hands (and why would Jesus have given this authority to them in the first place?) if His Church wasn't something which could be seen?

Just as the Father founded a visible nation on Israel, Jesus founded a visible Church on Peter and the eleven. Just as the Father gave Israel a king, so did Jesus give us a prince. Just as Israel's king would be succeeded until Jesus took the throne, so is the prince of the apostles succeeded until his own office finds its fulfillment at the end of our time on earth.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually the apostle Peter played very little role in starting churches, He and the other apostles but for Paul stayed in Jerusalem, shirking Jesus command to go out.

Is there some source you could link to for this? My understanding is that Peter did stay in Jerusalem, but all the other apostles did go far and wide.

 

[TuxAme]

There is one Church. But it's not an institution. It's the body of Christ made up of all genuine believers. Institutional churches may contain posers, pretenders to the faith, and even heretics. Thus institutional churches are not of themselves the body of Christ. But as for the early institutional churches, they were primarily house churches more participatory, less formal and less liturgical or ceremonial than what passes for "churches" today.

The first Christians would disagree.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, "Amen." And there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

And they who are well-to-do and willing give what each thinks fit. What is collected is deposited with the president, who helps the orphans, widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in need, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us—in a word takes care of all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly. because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world. Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (Justin, First Apology 67).

 

[EJ M]

That quote comes from The Trail of Blood, a book written by a Baptist preacher in the 1930s, ostensibly to prove that the baptist church existed from the first century. To prove his point he took every known heresy in the history of the Church and renamed them "baptists" to create the impression that the baptists had been around that long and had been persecuted by the Church.

It's an outright falsehood. One of the most dishonest parts of the book is the "1200 year" embellishment of Hosius to make it seem that the Anabaptists had been around for that long. They hadn't.

Direct quote from Shacklock's translation of Hosius writings, ( which was also quoted in the Baptist Minister, J Carroll's work, "The Trail of Blood")
The number 1,200 is an accurate quote, One must conclude Hosius did in fact make that statement.
Attempts to whitewash it doesn't change history:
Quote by Hosius, according to Shacklock's translation;
Neither was there such foolish hardy heretics in Saint Augustine's time only. For four hundred years ago, at what time S. Bernard lived, there were Anabaptists, which were no less prodigal to spend their life, than were the Donatists, some (saith he) did marvel that they were led to their death not only patiently but as it seemed very frolic and merry

 

[~Anastasia~]

Haven't been able to read everything so far.

There was only one Church in the sense that Christ established only one Church. The Apostles traveled and spread the Gospel and people believed, establishing local Churches. All of them shared beliefs and practices - that's why the corrective parts of the Epistles were written - to bring them back to truth and unity of the faith.

Yes, heresies arose. There were actually many. And the Church dealt with them, setting forth what was true as it was needed to constant a number of heresies.

Most consider the first major schism to be over Chalcedon, regarding the nature/s of Christ. That was the separation of the OO. After that the Church continued. There was no "Catholic" in terms of Roman Catholic, but Rome did begin to have differences that were not resolved. In 1054 there were five sees - Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. The effect of the schism was to separate Rome from the other four - and then there was Catholicism apart from the reset of the Church (now called Orthodox).

It is a very limited understanding that sees only Catholicism as the early Church.

It isn't wrong as you stated to acknowledge the Nestorians either. Except Nestorianism was regarded as outright heresy, so I'm guessing that's why it's not usually told that way. Other schisms of other heretics happened as well but afaik none of those really persisted (except perhaps some Gnostics).

But the story will sound a little different depending on one's point of view. Catholics of course tend to view themselves at the center of the story, commenting instead that Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria all left.

 

[The Times]

Its a hard study because there are different versions of history. Even my professor taught it differently.

The way my professor taught it. There was only one Church, the Catholic Church which started with apostle Peter, then Christianity was allowed in Rome by Constantine. The Churches in the East rejected the Pope and had a Schism 1054.

The way I learned it myself:
There were East and West Churches simultaneously, with different theological, political, and hierarchal influences. There were 2 minor schisms, with the Nestorians (Hypostatic Union), and the Chalcedon (Not even sure what happened). As time grew the tensions of East and West grew, the concept of a Pope didn't fly with the East neither did some teachings so finally, they had a schism in 1054.

So the 4 major Churches from the 11th century, are Assyrian Church (Nestorians), Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholicism.

Hello friend. This detailed read answers all your questions.

Its a hard study because there are different versions of history. Even my professor taught it differently.

The way my professor taught it. There was only one Church, the Catholic Church which started with apostle Peter, then Christianity was allowed in Rome by Constantine. The Churches in the East rejected the Pope and had a Schism 1054.

The way I learned it myself:
There were East and West Churches simultaneously, with different theological, political, and hierarchal influences. There were 2 minor schisms, with the Nestorians (Hypostatic Union), and the Chalcedon (Not even sure what happened). As time grew the tensions of East and West grew, the concept of a Pope didn't fly with the East neither did some teachings so finally, they had a schism in 1054.

So the 4 major Churches from the 11th century, are Assyrian Church (Nestorians), Oriental Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholicism.

Christianity was historically spread by merchant routes along the Silk Road. The work of God's hands is the Assyrian Church.

Please read...

Does Orthodox Christianity owe its routes from Nineveh Iraq (Edessa)

Please read...

Does Orthodox Christianity owe its routes from Nineveh Iraq (Edessa)

Please read....

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...Vaw2Fgh1SmZDl59TrEsOnAgBj&cshid=1543129715083

Please read the entire thread called...

Does Orthodox Christianity owe its routes from Nineveh Iraq (Edessa)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Look it very much depends. Is the Ethiopic Church the same as the Coptic? They were related, but differed slightly. This is akin to how Eastern and Western Christianity kept house together till the high mediaeval period. Even then, you ignore subtle divisions even amongst them. For instance the Celtic Church with its own tonsure and originally own computation of Easter. Or smaller groups of Heretics like Paulicians and such. Or the Nestorians in China had their own syncretic usages, such as having their own set of 'commandments' - one of which being loyalty to the Emperor, to limit persecution.

Hard to reduce to X number of churches at point N, without assuming a lot. How people answer this depends a lot on their own religious background and historic narrative. To reconstruct the 'correct' narrative is hedged by caveats on all sides.

 

[bcbsr]

Is there some source you could link to for this? My understanding is that Peter did stay in Jerusalem, but all the other apostles did go far and wide.

Read Acts. Like you said Peter stayed in Jerusalem, despite being commanded, "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." and to make disciples of Gentiles, neither of which he did in the book of Acts. Other than reluctantly in single events - like Cornelius. There's a video Peter and Paul which plays that out. Peter only wrote two letters, and both directed apparently to Jews. Paul wrote most of the NT epistles and is the dominate figure in Acts.

 

[bcbsr]

The first Christians would disagree.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying, "Amen." And there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

And they who are well-to-do and willing give what each thinks fit. What is collected is deposited with the president, who helps the orphans, widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in need, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us—in a word takes care of all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly. because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world. Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (Justin, First Apology 67).

Justin was not among the "first Christians". He lived in the second century. The first Christians you'll find in the Scriptures. Scriptures mention nothing of a "president".