The History of the Church

[gitlance]

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion on this board about the Catholicity of the Church -- especially as it pertains to the Church of England and her children. This was compiled by an Anglican priest to reflect the Church's historic understanding of Anglican ecclesiology as it relates to the rest of the Church Catholic.

I apologize if this image is a little large.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1826/churchhistorychart0if.jpg

[Thomas2618]

That has actually been the most helpful learning tool I have ever come across. I still always picture those two pages in my head very often. I'm glad I had the pleasure of reading that whole book ("Whole Christianity" by H. C. Edsall). Need to read it again though...

[frattymcgee]

oh my friend, i find this chart upsetting, well at least we know what the true Church is :-)

[PaladinValer]

I see some errors (like the idea of "Mariolatry") but it's pretty darn good.

I can tell it is also quite dated too. Obviously there are far more Christians than that today :)

[gitlance]

I see some errors (like the idea of "Mariolatry") but it's pretty darn good.

I can tell it is also quite dated too. Obviously there are far more Christians than that today :)

Yes it is about 10 years old or so. Maybe a tad bit older than that. Still quite relevant and true.

[PaladinValer]

Oh yes; the core idea of it is entirely sound. Don't think I'm critiquing that :)

[Fish and Bread]

Thanks for posting this. It's an interesting chart. I think I'm going to have to take issue with the idea of "no essential doctrinal" difference between Eastern and Western Christianity as of 1054AD, though. :) Papal claims of monarchial authority began in the 6th century (On and off). This was an essential difference and to my way of thinking somewhat doctrinal in nature. There were some communications issues, but this particular issue was a doctrinal one and constituted an actual difference of opinion versus an imaged one. In fact, I think if communications had been better, the split might have actually occurred sooner.

John

[cathromang]

Had to print this puppy...

thanks Git' !!

[gitlance]

Thanks for posting this. It's an interesting chart. I think I'm going to have to take issue with the idea of "no essential doctrinal" difference between Eastern and Western Christianity as of 1054AD, though. :) Papal claims of monarchial authority began in the 6th century (On and off). This was an essential difference and to my way of thinking somewhat doctrinal in nature. There were some communications issues, but this particular issue was a doctrinal one and constituted an actual difference of opinion versus an imaged one. In fact, I think if communications had been better, the split might have actually occurred sooner.

John

I think he is seeing this split as a primary result of political power struggles -- after all, the pope in Rome didn't make any claim to infallibility or universal authority until many years later.

[Fish and Bread]

I think he is seeing this split as a primary result of political power struggles -- after all, the pope in Rome didn't make any claim to infallibility or universal authority until many years later.

Are you sure? I thought I read somewhere that there was a meeting in the 6th century that some of the Eastern bishops walked out of when Papal legates tried to impose some sort of authority. I may be misremembering, though.

John

[gitlance]

Are you sure? I thought I read somewhere that there was a meeting in the 6th century that some of the Eastern bishops walked out of when Papal legates tried to impose some sort of authority. I may be misremembering, though.

John

The Bishop of Rome had been slowly accumulating power in the West, but the final straw was in 1054 when he tried to change the creed without a council and against the will of the other patriarchs.