Protestant View of Church History

Protestant View of Church History

30-150 AD: The period of the Eldership/Presbytery with autonomous local churches: Congregational oligarchy where each local church is independent and self governing. There is a plurality of Bishops ruling each local church and their authority does not extend outside their local church.

150-250 AD: The period of the “Episcopal Presbytery” of autonomous local churches. Local churches were governed by a single bishop/overseer (Episcopate) over a group of elders (Presbytery). The only change was that the office of elder/bishop was split into two separate offices within each local church. At first, one elder was seen as the leading elder. (150 AD) Then this leading elder began to take on exclusive title of Bishop. (200 AD)

250-451 AD: The period of the 5 Patriarchs: The oligarchic diocesan episcopate. Three changes take place in this era. 1. The rise of diocesan bishops who rule a small group of churches in addition to his own local church. (250 AD) 2. The rise of metropolitans who were nothing more than the diocesan bishops from the large and important cities. (300 AD) 3. The rise of patriarchs who were nothing more than the metropolitans from the largest and most important cities. (381 AD)

451-588 AD: The period of the 5 Patriarchs who rule the church as and Autocephalous oligarchy within their own respective territories. (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.) Rome and Constantinople are seen as near equals, with Rome having the highest honours, but neither Rome or Constantinople had universal authority. Rome was the only Patriarch of the west, while Constantinople was seen as the leading patriarch among the other three eastern patriarchs.

588-606 AD: The final “dog-fight” between Rome and Constantinople for the top position of “universal bishop” where only one bishop wins the prize of ruling the entire church world wide. Constantinople was first to make the claim of Universal Bishop, but Gregory said no man should wear the title, not even the Himself as the Bishop of Rome. Gregory called such a title the earmark of the anti-Christ. Eight years later the Boniface III, Bishop of Rome, takes the formal title of “Universal Bishop” and has so to the present time. The Pope was born in its present organizational form.

606 AD-Today: Boniface III, Bishop of Rome is the first bishop of Rome to take the title: “universal Bishop”: Catholicism is formally born in its present organizational form. Constantinople however, never agrees and eventually proclaims itself the Universal bishop of the east. Noting has really changed in 1400 years. Rome is head of the Latin/Western church and Constantinople is the head of the Greek/Eastern church. But the way they govern is quite different. The Bishop of Rome went on to take total absolute control of western church. Remember Rome was the only Western Patriarch. Constantinople, however, governed the eastern church in the tradition of the period of the 5 Patriarchs (451-588 AD). While Rome proclaimed itself sole monarch with absolute power throughout the western church, Constantinople, in the spirit of the period of the 5 Patriarchs (451-588 AD) called itself “the first among equals” and does so to the present time. When the Muslims slashed their way with the bloodied sword in an attempt for world domination in 622 AD, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, were all but wiped out. This left only two dominant players on the world stage to rule the church: Rome in the West and Constantinople in the East. It remains so to the present day. No further organization developments have occurred since 606 AD. The basic structure of Rome and Constantinople was solidified in 606 AD and remains basically unchanged to the present time. Yes many more Patriarchs were added in the East, but after the same order and design of Constantinople in 606AD, echoing the period of the 5 Patriarchs (451-588 AD).

This must be taken from history books written after 1500+.
This is the Liturgy of Apostle and Evangelist Mark:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.xii.iii.html
Where do you see Elder ?
You can see priest or deacon.
The problem protestants have is that they re translated priest with elder and in Orthodox Church we are advised about the errors of Protestantism.
The Protestants have a BIG problem with History since all valid documents contradict thyr stand in debates. Like Prayer for departed we can see such prayers in the Liturgy of Apostle Mark.

It is written:
1 Timothy 3

1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

So too bad for what you said since you have Bishop from Bible. Please correct your error.

monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6114

AdrianP, Bishop then and Bishop now are two different Bishops. Sorry if that offends.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Two eyes and a brain.

606 AD-Today:

Whoa what a jump. Is it your opinion that the Protestant view of Church History is that lazy that it would lump over half of the Church’s history into a single paragraph?

Shame on you Protestant historians :tsktsk: :smiley:

God bless

That’s rather rude, considering I was merely asking for an explanation. I fail to see the difference between a bishop then and a bishop now.

I always thought the book of Titus was good evidence of hierarchy from the start. Paul sent Titus to oversee the churches of Crete and choose pastors. In other words, Titus was a bishop between pastor and patriarch/apostle in authority.

Now where does the apostle fit in here?

well, of course it is from something written after 1500 AD…it tries to takes us up to Today (2009 AD)

This is the Liturgy of Apostle and Evangelist Mark:

Where do you see Elder ?
You can see priest or deacon.

And? Your liturgy is from the 12th century…hardly good for determining what was done at the start.

The Protestants have a BIG problem with History since all valid documents contradict thyr stand in debates.

This seems like wishful thinking on your part…


Try actually reading HISTORY Before espousing this drivel.
Both Early Church History as recorded in Scripture & the other deutro-canonical & apocrapha & secular Historians from that aforementioned Time periods Fail to support your Time-line & psuedo-Factual representations.

We are used to well intentioned but uniformed Individuals attempting to assert their particular Beliefs unto the Catholic Church & her members. However in all fairness please try to avail yourself of the actual documentation of the Historical Periods & the Catholic Church so that you might be able to make a few salient points instead of just rash & wholly unsubstantiated assertions. (NO references or footnotes, etc .)

It just makes you appear to be another boneheaded uninformed Catholic Basher.

Regards,

1 Like

Hello Imkingdad…you sound like a particularly unpleasant fellow

My time line? Have I endorsed the OP? Can’t recall that I did…but AdrianP is inclined to link a 12th century liturgy whilst claiming that the church has always taught what is set out in that liturgy…that makes little sense.

It just makes you appear to be another boneheaded uninformed Catholic Basher.

I’ve been called worse…by better.

Your liturgy is from the 12th century

Your source for this claim?

Are you saying there was no liturgy in the first millennium, or that it was significantly different than we have now? Different in what substantial way?

**The Tridentine Liturgy originated in 1564, or thereabouts?

The latest one is about to be side stepped is it not and there are moves to bring your founding liturgy back ? It is medieval if anything! **

Go to the link that AdrianP provided and then read the yellow highlighted note at the very start of the translation of the liturgy…you can also find a book on this liturgy at Googlebooks (by searching “Mark Evangelist Liturgy”)

Are you saying there was no liturgy in the first millennium, or that it was significantly different than we have now?

The first millenium is far too broad a period for such a generalization…I am not well read in the area of early liturgies and my understanding is limited to the sort of information provided in this sort of Source …which indicates that the earliest significant liturgical document that we possess is from the late 4th Century…and that it reflects the practice in Antioch at that time (after significant changes in liturgical practice would have taken place with the role of the Church changing) I think that this site is too optimistic wrt its claim that “The liturgical rites of all the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be traced back to the original rite in use in Jerusalem prior to the Apostolic missionary activities to the Gentiles,…”

That’s nonsense. Hippolytus’s anaphora dates from the early third century. However, according to E. J. Yarnold, S.J., “The Liturgy of the Faithful in the Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries,” The Study of Liturgy, ed. Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold, and Paul Bradshaw (Oxford University Press, 1992), 230-44, cited at 230, fixed texts did not come into common use until the fourth century. Ambrose’s *De Sacramentis *(fourth century) contains the following passage from the central portion of the Eucharistic prayer (cited from Yarnold, 233):

we offer you this spotless sacrifice, this spiritual sacrifice, this bloodless sacrifice, this holy bread and chalice of eternal life, and we beseech and pray you to take up this offering by the hands of your angels to your altar on high, just as you were graciously pleased to receive the gift of your just servant Abel, the sacrifice of our father Abraham, and the offering the high priest Melchizedek made to you

Not only is this key (and particularly controversial for Protestants) part of the Mass already in place in the fourth century, but it’s clear from Yarnold’s discussion that the structure of the Mass was basically in place by then, although there were of course later developments (Yarnold claims on p. 232 that the use of the Sanctus didn’t spread through the West until the early fifth century). D. M. Hope (revised by G. Woolfenden), in the article on “The Medieval Western Rites” from the same volume (264-85), claims that “the core of the Roman Canon” was being fixed by the fifth century (citing Ambrose again for the earliest references). According to Hope/Woolfenden (267), the “more oblationary and anamnetic sections” of the Eucharistic Prayer were fixed by the time of Leo I (440-61), and “**y the beginning of the sixth century the framework of the Western liturgy had been essentially determined, so far as the public prayer of the celebrant is concerned” (269). Yes, there were later developments, but they did not affect the basic Eucharistic Prayer.

*The Study of Liturgy *is, by the way, an ecumenical volume and a standard scholarly reference sourc.

Edwin**

1 Like

by “significant liturgical documents” I suspect that the site means a document that contains more than what is contained in Hippolytus’s anaphora. If you had read the page, you would have come across this, “For instance, the Clementine Liturgy contains scripture readings, sermon, dismissal of catechumens, a comprehensive litany, corporate intercessory prayer, kiss of peace, procession of the gifts to the altar, anaphora and eucharistic prayers, intercessions and the communing of the faithful. The Clementine Liturgy enables us to form a reasonably accurate picture of late fourth century eucharistic worship in the province of Antioch.”

…so how does the Hippolytus anaphora compare in detail and content?

Not only is this key (and particularly controversial for Protestants) part of the Mass already in place in the fourth century, but it’s clear from Yarnold’s discussion that the structure of the Mass was basically in place by then, …Yes, there were later developments, but they did not affect the basic Eucharistic Prayer.

And? The point is that AdrianP thinks that by producing a liturgy from the 12th century, that he has demonstrated the continuous practice of the church from Christ to the Reformation. Liturgies that can placed at earlier dates (than the one AdrianP has provided on this and another thread) can be found, but (it seems that) a complete one is not found until the late fourth century…so a few hundred years is still missing. You have pointed out that bits of earlier liturgies can be found, and they may move the time-line back a few decades, but you can’t trace them back to the start. I know that in historical circles, there are those that believe that the initial worship service involved a great deal of participation from the body (see 1 Cor 14) and that the Lord’s Supper was originally tied to a full meal. I am inclined to accept that belief and so I don’t think that the formal liturgies represent the way things were at the start. You may wish to disagree with that belief, (and you have done better than AdrianP), but to challenge that belief you would need to do better than Hippolytus and Ambrose.(as they came along well after the fact).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.