Are there any other churches besides the CC that date to Christ?

Matthewmatt · #1 May 21, '12, 3:58 pm

I've heard claims that there are other churches that date back to the time of Christ that never have been in communion with Rome. There are churches in india, middle east, and Jerusalem they say. This is what a church of Christ member told me in defense to me stating that the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ founded and that the early Church accepted Rome as it's authority.

Please help! Thanks

asd72 · #2 May 21, '12, 5:06 pm

Perhaps they mean Eastern Catholic Churches that have never been OUT of communion with Rome? There are about 3 Rites as far as I know.

THE_ENCORE · #3 May 21, '12, 5:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthewmatt

I've heard claims that there are other churches that date back to the time of Christ that never have been in communion with Rome. There are churches in india, middle east, and Jerusalem they say. This is what a church of Christ member told me in defense to me stating that the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ founded and that the early Church accepted Rome as it's authority.

Please help! Thanks

the Orthodox church and the Catholic church were one until historically they split because of small issues( filloque , politics) in 1054. so yes there is 2 churches that claim to be the church that was founded by Christ, the orthodox and the catholic church. there are 23 eastern-rite churches that are still in communion in rome despite being eastern(where orthodoxy is the main christian stream). but jesus built his church upon peter, the rock, and he gave peter the ability to bind in earth and in heaven, thus the catholic church, built upon peter is the true church from Jesus Christ.

TGIC · #4 May 21, '12, 6:41 pm

The Syriac Orthodox Church (under the Oriental Orthodox group of churches) also claim to have apostolic succession back to St Peter. And the church of Antioch was established by St Peter too. Antioch is frequently mentioned in the book of Acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church
http://catholicose.org/PauloseII/Chu..._Universal.htm

The church of Antioch still survives today:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Antioch

The Syriac churches have also spread to India, so perhaps they were referring to it.

There is some information on the split between the Oriental Orthodox from the rest of Christendom in the 5th century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

A bunch of links but very fascinating history.

**JRKH** · #5 May 21, '12, 7:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthewmatt

I've heard claims that there are other churches that date back to the time of Christ that never have been in communion with Rome. There are churches in india, middle east, and Jerusalem they say. This is what a church of Christ member told me in defense to me stating that the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ founded and that the early Church accepted Rome as it's authority.

Please help! Thanks

Bolding this section because it can be tricky if one is not careful....
Saying that the Church accepted "Rome" as its authority can play into the hands of those who claim that "Constantine (Roman Emperor) founded the Catholic Church"
The Church did not accept "Rome" as its' authority. Rather it accepted the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the leader of the Church.

That said, there were also other very important "sees" among the Church - One in Constantinople, one in Alexandria, and two or three others I believe....
But they were ALL a part of the One Church.

Yes it's interesting to note that I believe when the early European missionaries arrived in India, they found a Christian presence there that traditionally was linked to Thomas...I don't know of any others...

Peace
James

Matthewmatt · #6 May 21, '12, 7:09 pm

-TGIC

i really liked your links their good but so what does this implicate for the Catholic Church? Because my protestant friend was trying to prove a point by saying that these exsisted that in the early Church the Pope did not have power like he does now that not all Christians looked to him for authority. Did these Churches used to be in Communion with Rome?

pablope · #7 May 21, '12, 8:21 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthewmatt

-TGIC

i really liked your links their good but so what does this implicate for the Catholic Church? Because my protestant friend was trying to prove a point by saying that these exsisted that in the early Church the Pope did not have power like he does now that not all Christians looked to him for authority. Did these Churches used to be in Communion with Rome?

What kind of power is your friend talking about?

Yes...all were in communion with Rome...any ecumenical council needed the Bishop of Rome. After the Great Schism, the Orthodox have not been able to call for one, to my knowledge.

This has godd info: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

From the very beginning we find a graduated hierarchy of metropolitans, exarchs, and primates. We find, too, from the beginning the idea that a bishop inherits the dignity of the founder of his see, that, therefore, the successor of an Apostle has special rights and privileges. This graduated hierarchy is important as explaining the pope's position. He was not the one immediate superior of each bishop; he was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid. The consciousness of the early Christian probably would have been that the heads of Christendom were the patriarchs; then further he knew quite well that the chief patriarch sat at Rome. However, the immediate head of each part of the Church was its patriarch. After Chalcedon (451) we must count five patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The rivalry and hatred arose from several causes. Undoubtedly the first, the root of all the quarrel, was the advance of the See of Constantinople. We have seen that four Eastern patriarchates were to some extent contrasted to the one great Western unity. Had there remained four such unities in the East, nothing further need have followed. What accentuated the contrast and made it a rivalry was the gradual assumption of authority over the other three by the patriarch of Constantinople. It was Constantinople that bound together the East into one body, uniting it against the West. It was the persistent attempt of the emperor's patriarch to become a kind of Eastern pope, as nearly as possible equal to his Western prototype, that was the real source of all the trouble.

On the other hand, at every step in the advancement of Constantinople there was always the opposition of Rome. When the new see got its titular honour at the First Council of Constantinople (381, can.3), Rome refused to accept the canon (she was not represented at the council); when Chalcedon in 451 turned this into a real patriarchate (can. 28) the legates and then the pope himself refused to acknowledge what had been done;

This being so, we must remember how entirely unwarrantable, novel, and uncanonical the advance of Constantinople was. The see was not Apostolic, had no glorious traditions, no reason whatever for its usurpation of the first place in the East, but an accident of secular politics......The legend of St. Andrew founding their see was a late afterthought; it is now abandoned by all scholars. The claim of Constantinople was always frankly the purely Erastian one that as Caesar could establish his capital where he liked, so could he, the civil governor, give ecclesiastical rank in the hierarchy to any see he liked.

Apart from the Divine origin of the papacy, the advance of Constantinople was a gross violation of the rights of the Apostolic Sees of Alexandria and Antioch. We need not wonder that the popes, although their first place was not questioned, resented this disturbance of ancient rights by the ambition of the imperial bishops.