Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
How Old Is Your Church?If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744. If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605. If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century. If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church. |
It’s not Armenian, it’s a nickname that is a nod to my martial arts training. I’m about as much of a White, Northern European mongrel as you can get. English, Scottish, Irish, German...all of the above in my bloodline.
And seriously, if various Popes have apologized for the three things I listed - how do you purport to defend them? And WHY would you if you are RC and the Pope has already apologized? I thought that if the Pope spoke, the RC faithful were to be quiet.
I appreciate what you are saying. I should like to put it in another way that might help show how some Anglicans can remain faithful but so many fall away.
The Church of England was ultimately a compromise solution in which people whose beliefs tended to sacramental Christianity (and hence could be thought of as ‘catholics’) could live in peace with those whose beliefs tended to scriptural Christianity (and hence could be thought of as ‘protestants’). Notice one glaring omission here: no teaching office. If there is no central unchanging unchallengable authority, then somebody is going off the rails, sooner or later. That is now what has happened and it has left a remnant of the Anglican Communion rather wandering in a wilderness.
One other point: Catholic has now become a trade name, variously appropriated. The term originated in Aristotle, believe it or not, who used it to mean that which examplifies the entire truth of a type. In the Church He who is the type is Christ and thus all true Churches look to Him and seek to follow Him as closely and as faithfully as they can. Any particular example was then not kath olou, but kath ekastos. That would be you or me as individual examples. We each fail to represent the totality of the term, but so long as we acknowledge what constitutes the kath olou, we can be kath ekastos and do just fine.
The term kath olou in Aristotle and thus as Ignatius appropriated it, meant whole or complete. It did not mean universal and Ignatius used the term only to refer to particular churches, each of them being the entire catholic Church for those within them because the bishop represented Christ, the presbyters the Apostles and the deacons the commands of God (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8).
The sense that catholic means universal is a much later development and does not help to clarify what one must believe in order to be catholic, it only suggests that there should be one church. In the original sense, that would have meant one bishop over every Christian in the world and we all would have to travel to his diocesan church to celebrate the Eucharist. The impracticality emerges immediately, yes?
To me, catholicity is a matter of what I believe to be necessary for salvation and that depends on what can be proved from Scripture (and not on my opinion about what Scripture is or contains). Anything else can be held piously but is not necessary for salvation and the fact of catholicity then depends on the authentic presence in a church of an authentic bishop capable of celebrating an authentic Eucharist.
**I owe allegiance to Christ.**
Good grief — who do you think it at the center of the Catholic Faith? It’s Jesus Christ.
Remember, we DO read the Bible!
Where do you get this seemingly false informationabout the Catholic Church? From anti-Catholics?
There's no difference. It is His promise to us.
Christ’s Church was built on the foundation of Christ and His apostles, not on Peter...
This is a very common misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18.
...or Rome.
Of course not. Bizarre. Rome was pagan then, but the Catholic Church Christ founded when He gave the keys to Pope Peter definitely was not.
May Rome go to hell.
That's a very un-Christian damnation of the capital city of Italy. Creepy, actually.
Sheesh, I hate the heresy of Rome.
I wasn't aware that Italy's capital had committed any heresy. I'm Catholic and I've never been to Italy. I'd've thought I would have read it in the paper or something.
May the Catholic Church be prepared for Christ’s return.
He promised always to keep His Church from error, and the very gates of hell will not prevail against her. Whether Benedict is His vicar then or a successor, we will all be in good stead on that day.
Who in the world ever claimed an entire city was crucified?
That's bizarre, and frankly, incoherent.
The book about atheism sounds interesting. Thanks for the idea.
Dear, dear Brother...
The Scriptures that you cite as the ultimate earthly authority (or at least seem to, as I admittedly cannot be sure what’s in your mind)...
Were the product of the Holy Spirit through the earthly instrument of the very Hierarchs you seem to dismiss.
Puget, without the Ecumenical Councils, there would be no set canon of scripture.
That is historical fact. It is not in dispute.
People need to quit confusing the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” with the ROMAN Catholic Church. Ever hear of the Great Schism?
lol
Stop being deliberately argumentative. It’s unbecoming. The three presentations are not dramatically different. The biggest difference is that the Orthodox presentation of the Hebrew scripture is based on the original Greek Septuagint texts and not the revised Masoretic, the latter of which which frankly inserted more ambiguity regarding Mary as well as other Messianic Prophecy. Much to the delight of modern liberal Protestants who like to use that ambiguity in support of their various apostasies.
I’m going to bed. I have liturgy in the morning, and a friend is being enrolled as a catechumen.
As I am not ordained to offer a blessing, I’ll simply say may the Lord keep you.
Yes. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is worldwide. The Roman Catholic Church is just the part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is in Rome.
Since I'm not Italian, I'm not Roman Catholic.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Oh, Lord, have mercy.
I am not being deliberately argumentative. If we are to use the Bible as a guide to what a Christian is, then we should first start with the correct Bible - the ENTIRE Bible.
And I would point out that of the three primary Christian canons - the Orthodox, the Catholic, and the Protestant, only the Protestant canon matches that as followed by Christ: the original Jewish canon of the Old Testament.
But my first point remains: what is the Biblical foundation for the papacy?
A question: I attend - and am a member of - a local Free Methodist church, and I am an elder at that church. Am I part of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
You’re welcome. It’s a thin book, but packed with good info. Highly recommended.
As I understand Catholic teaching, if you were baptized by the Triune formula and you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, yes, you are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.