Funny - I found Church history to be the gateway to my eventual conversion to the Catholic Church. I’ve since earned a graduate degree in history and have yet to have this statement be anything other than strengthened. It’s difficult (impossible?) to reconcile any sense of historical continuity with any modern-day Church except for the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Communion or the Assyrian Church of the East. These are the (only) four modern-day branches of the historic, undivided Church founded by Christ and his Apostles.
I guess you and I cancel each other out ;-). But, don’t believe the myths about Church history. The truth may lead you Rome-ward bound...
“except for the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Communion or the Assyrian Church of the East.”
You’re certainly correct in terms of continuing institutions. However, why is that that so many under the Bishop of Rome act as if (and say all the time) their institution alone is the original...when the Eastern Churches have an equal or even more valid claim to that?
Mainly I cannot buy either that there has been a continually faithful chain of curia, from the pope of Rome on down...Too many generations of medieval popes appear, in my opinion—from the Roman Catholic sources of history—not to have behaved as if they were Christians at all, let alone passing down the authority and holiness of St. Peter. The schism, and the Babylonian Captivity of the 14th and 15th Centuries comes to mind. (not to mention the burning at that time—by a council, not simply a pope, of a good man named John Hus)
Suffice it to say I believe institutional structures of all kinds are not identical to the one true universal Church of Jesus Christ, made up of faithful believing Christians from a myriad of denominational names. Starting historically yes with the five original patriarchies, but branching out from there—and the gates of hell, either within or without the human institutions, have not prevailed.