Replies

Well what happened is that official church art work and histories have gone together to produce an image that all of the Apostles and those trained by the apostles all looked like and were something of the same order as what would would be familiar to people raised with the imagery and pageantry of the “See of Rome.”

Then when speaking of churches, the discussion keeps getting drug back to the concept of supra-church organizational structures, e.g. “The Church of the East,” The “Catholic Church,” etc.

But the churches established with believers who were personally won to Christ by the Apostles were simple local assemblies of believers. Believers moved on from place to place for various reasons just as they do today.

We simply do not believe-—we outright reject-—that a supra-church bishopric held any sway at all with the general number of believers in Asia Minor, Palestine, Eastern Europe before the last half of the 3rd century at the earliest, when certain bishops got hungry for power and control over multiplicities of local churches.

Up to that time there was not only a (singular) church in Rome, but there were multiple local assemblies of Christians. Even the Epistle to the Romans in the New Testament is not addressed to one single congregation, and there is not exalted one single over-arching bishopric. It did not exist.

These small congregations would have been springing up anywhere believers traveled from town to town, for in that day, individual believers believed that they were the “vicars” of Christ on earth -— ambassadors for Christ, and were soul-winning Christians (They were not beer and BBQ “Christians” in those days.). They were also copiers of Scriptures, the letters they had received from the apostles. And the Body of Christ (the true union of all believers in Christ under one Heavenly Head, not dependent on a visible earthly “SEE”) was spreading northward and westward.

There is no reason to believe that individual soul-winning believers were not already moving westward and northward with the Gospel from Palestine and Syria from 45 and 50 AD. What would would have prevented it? The very idea that all Christians and Christian congregations were under one “SEE” located in central Italy from the very outset is ridiculous. ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. And there are plenty of credible histories that deal with it. Of course, one has to be able to believe that there were skilled and honest historians who were never concerned as to whether their works ever had a particular church's stamp of approval on them.

I mean just think of a traveler having heard the Gospel and having believed on Christ in, say, 45 AD in Antioch. His home is somewhere in th current-day Czech Republic. The new Christian goes home and begins to expound the salvation he has experienced by faith in Christ. Soon, he has won others to Jesus Christ, and they form a congregation of believers. Several years or several decades could have passed before they were aware of a “SEE” in Rome, even if they had traveled to other congregations where they might find copies of the Scriptures in part or in whole.

Just looking at the normal migration of peoples in the first and second centuries, and realizing that the spread of the Gospel was very fast by the means of personal evabngelism (See 1 Thessalonians 1:7-10)-—the winning of people to Christ by the Gospel and the establishing of local congregations of believers would have occurred at a much more rapid rate than the establishment of any elaborate “SEE”, which many of those early believers never did SEE nor HEAR of.

We simply do not believe-—we outright reject-—that a supra-church bishopric held any sway at all with the general number of believers in Asia Minor, Palestine, Eastern Europe before the last half of the 3rd century at the earliest,

No one's asking you to believe -- just check the historical documents and you'll see that that rejection is false.

Up to that time there was not only a (singular) church in Rome, but there were multiple local assemblies of Christians. Even the Epistle to the Romans in the New Testament is not addressed to one single congregation, and there is not exalted one single over-arching bishopric. It did not exist.

That is also incorrect, there was an apostle for each group to ensure that it did not fall away under the influence of the Montanists or the Gnostics or any of the other "reforming" sects that arose.

Without it, you would be now confirming the Gospel of Thomas as scripture

And the Body of Christ (the true union of all believers in Christ under one Heavenly Head, not dependent on a visible earthly “SEE”) was spreading northward and westward.

That's quite wrong -- Christianity didn't spread into provincial Gaul and Britannica until well into the 2nd century and that too, under authority from Bishops. Christianity in the First century spread to Jewish areas first and to Roman metropoli -- Christianity was initially predominantly urban, while the rural persons (pagan means rural peasant) stuck to the old gods for a lot longer. Check that in historical records

There is no reason to believe that individual soul-winning believers were not already moving westward and northward with the Gospel from Palestine and Syria from 45 and 50 AD. What would would have prevented it?

For the simple reason that they were not initially sure if they should spread to non-Jewish folks. That wasn't really settled until 69 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem when the Jewish-Christians were dispersed. Post that, the Church became gentile.

And, for the simple reason that Christianity spread and organized itself as per Roman organisation -- it spread along Roman roads (the Appian Way, etc)

The very idea that all Christians and Christian congregations were under one “SEE” located in central Italy from the very outset is ridiculous. ABSOLUTELY ridiculous

No one said that -- Christians in Alexandria were under the see of Alexandria -- this included Lybia, Cyrene, Nubia and Mauritania Pacis, those in Jerusalem, Nabatea, Arabia Felix were under the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Those in Syria, Anatolia and Achea were under Antioch. The Church in Rome grew slowest as that region was not as urbanized as the EAst, hence the bishoprics were tightly held, unlike the East.

Churchs in Ireland too in later centuries, remained faithful to Rome.

You seem to think that the see of Rome would send out daily communications. No, that wasn't possible until the telegraph. However, the congregations were in contact, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In actuality, they could go for years without hearing from him and may even stray, however, their local bishop was supposed to ensure they didn't fall into heresies like Gnosticism or even Donatism etc.

the BISHOP was due to report to Rome.

If you consider that "The very idea that all Christians and Christian congregations were under one “SEE” located in central Italy from the very outset is ridiculous. ABSOLUTELY ridiculous", then you probably consider that the idea that all people in the Roman Empire were under one EMPEROR located in central Italy or Constantinople as ridiculous? Or that all people in the Mongol Empire (4 times larger than the Roman) were under one Khagan? sheesh

I mean just think of a traveler having heard the Gospel and having believed on Christ in, say, 45 AD in Antioch. His home is somewhere in th current-day Czech Republic. The new Christian goes home and begins to expound the salvation he has experienced by faith in Christ. Soon, he has won others to Jesus Christ, and they form a congregation of believers. Several years or several decades could have passed before they were aware of a “SEE” in Rome, even if they had traveled to other congregations where they might find copies of the Scriptures in part or in whole.

Incorrect -- current-day Czech Republic in 45 AD was outside the Roman Empire and populated sparsely, if at all, by Vandals or other barbarian Germanics. They were illiterate and definitely didn't know Koine Greek.

If there was this Germanic who came to Antioch, to go back would have been rare, if not impossible in 45 AD. Let's however, for arguments sake, say he DID and he knew Greek. Then, in that case, he would want to ensure that His teachings were true, so HIS teacher would be the priest or Bishop in Antioch. To think that would not have heard of the bishop of Rome, St. Peter, is ludicrous.

Just looking at the normal migration of peoples in the first and second centuries, and realizing that the spread of the Gospel was very fast by the means of personal evabngelism

The migration of peoples didn't start until well into the 3rd century when the Han Empire defeated the Xiongnu and pushed them west and they pushed the Scyths, who pushed the Sarmatians, who pushed the Slavs, who pushed the GErmanics, who pushed the Celts etc. culminating in the 4th and 5th centuries.

In 45 AD, the Roman Empire stopped at the Rhine in the north and was more concerned with the Parthians to the East.

45 AD was the reign of Claudius.

We simply do not believe-—we outright reject-—that a supra-church bishopric held any sway at all with the general number of believers in Asia Minor, Palestine, Eastern Europe before the last half of the 3rd century at the earliest, when certain bishops got hungry for power and control over multiplicities of local churches.

Do you have any clue why this irritates me?

Outside of the seeming irrational and irrelevant allergy to the old word "see", what we have here is the typical, usual, characteristic and BORING Protestant tactic of boldly and with colorful rhetoric rejecting something that was not said.

Also, it shows that we all know that catholic bishops are about nothing but power and dominion while the poor helpless heretics are just meek and mild little people only interested in being allowed to worship in their own way.

We can do better, if we want. Do we want?

It seems sometimes that the entire Protestant attack involves taking one point, excising it from its context, and rhetorically killing it -=- all the while not noticng that the thing does exist outside its context.

For example, over HERE we are attacked for saying that that what Apostolic Succession and the infallibility of the Church means IN REAL LIFE, rather than in the febrile deliria of our antagonists, is that forms, expressions, and pastoral relationships DEVLOP. And WHILE that attack is going on, somebody else is over THERE attacking us AS IF WE CLAIMED that the use and habits of the Church in the 21st Century Vatican is exactly what it was the week after Peter showed up in Rome.

Clearly this represents a deep seated need, so in charity I will concede second century Christians in what was later Bohemia neither knew nor assented to the canons of the Council of Trent.

You wanna try a little less rhetoric and a little more precision in your charge now?

In related news: Yes Bede mentions that Augustine of Canterbury found Christians in England when he landed. One of the murals in the Episcopal Cathedral in San FranSodom depicts that, as though that somehow justified Henry's later break with Rome. If they were interested in the TRUTH, they would have included a mural of the Synod of Whitby, in which English Christians renounced their heteronomous practices and recertified the primacy of the Church in communion with the Diocese of Rome.
(See how gracious I am. If "See" is somehow objectionable, I type Diocese." We aim to please.)