How Old Is Your Church?

EWTN ^ | not given | EWTN

[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.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

Of course, you’ve forgotten the fact that all the protestant Churches all originated from a split with the Roman Catholic Church.... There were also ultra-conservative splits within the Catholic Church following Vatican II, as well as ultra-liberal ones in more recent years were women get to become priests....

[kosta50]

But kosta, Yudan says "Aside from that, the Orthodox Church does not make pronouncements or declarations about where the Lord isn’t."

There are many sects and cults that claim to be "Christian" because they call on Christ's name. It's not where Lord isn't [sic], but what these sects believe.

There is but one official and binding Creed of the holy catholic and apostolic Church and that Symbol of Faith spells out what the Church believes in. Those who reject this Creed do not profess the holy catholic and apostolic faith and cannot be our Christian brothers and sisters.

[Cronos]

In regards to Donatists, Montanists, Paulicians, Waldensians, Petrobrussians, Jews, Albigensians, Hussites etc., was the Roman Catholic institution, i.e., the “Catholic church” not responsible for persecuting and killing in heinous ways, for nearly 12 centuries?

The Donatists -- these guys basically said anyone who had recanted his faith under persecution from the Roman emperors (this was from around 300 AD) should not be accepted back into The Church no matter what. Do you agree with that point of view? The Donatists saw the Emperor as the devil. CONSTANTINE setn troops to deal with the DOnatists in Carthage. Ditto for Valentian I. So, The Church wasn't responsible for this, it was a political act against a group who did not want to forgive. Were the Emperors wrong? Perhaps -- the movement could have died out or it could have gone to the extreme saying anyone who sinned even once had to be drummed out of The Church

The Montanist movement dates from 135 to 177 AD. Montanus said that he received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit and sometimes spoke in the first person as God. They believed that the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maxima superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. They believed that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed.

Do you agree with these points? If not, what would have happened in the infant Church if this spread? Finally, there was no persecution of the people, rather steady denunciation of the false prophecies

Ditto for the others

[Kolokotronis]

"The Orthodox Church have changed in substantial doctrine - the Catholics never have...perhaps the result of no parenting?"

????????????? Don't tell me you're one of those simple souls who believes the Creed was promulgated by the Council with the filioque! Heaven knows enough of your priests and missionaries taught that. Or are you referring to the ancient and patristic 19th century Romish innovations of the IC or papal infallibility? Or that we, in conformance to the Consensus Patrum, never adopted Blessed Augustine's singular notion of Original Sin? Or that we didn't submit to the pope of Rome when ordered to grovel by the Dictatus Papae? Oh, wait, how about because we don't have Eucharettes or altar girls or nuns playing vestal virgins in quasi pagan and very public services, is that it? I'm sure the Orthodox contingent here would just love to hear what "substantial doctrine" of The Church Rome thinks we have "changed". Change, b, is not something we are known for so hearing where we have changed from the likes of the kaleidoscopic Rome will be fascinating.

[Kolokotronis]

“Actually, don’t the Coptics say that this was first preached by the Patriarch of Alexandria? So wouldn’t he have been Coptic speaking?”

The problem arose in Alexandria. The Pat. of Alexandria did indeed preach against Arius’ heresy as did +Athanasius, his deacon...but they all did so in Greek and of course none of it was dogmatic until the Council, called to resolve the dispute, said so...in Greek. If the Copts are saying that +Athansius got it right before the Council, they are correct but in so saying they are merely pointing out that +Athanasius preached what The Church had always preached.

[kosta50]

See here: NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

What's up with post-Vatican II Catholics? Endless circular reasoning and rationalizations! Constantly hitting the "reset" button and re-inventing the wheel makes it very difficult for us Orthodox to have a constructive dialogue with the Catholic side.

Fr. Ryland may have missed something in his catechisis when he became Catholic: the Councils. he seems oblivious tot he ntion that the Church already considered all the biblical verses needed to define what the Church believes in: it's called the Symbol of Faith (aka the Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed) and it's been around for over 1,600 years.

Those who profess it have the faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church established by Christ; in other words they are our Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. Those who don't are not of the Church.

Can God save whomever he wants to save? By all means! Is it any of our concern? No at all. Christians are commanded to teach, and baptize into the Church in the name of the Holy Trinity. Leave salvation to God.

In his mercy, God desires to save all, but Christ shed his blood only for some, because only some will receive the benefit of his redemption. Read Matthew 25 and see why not all who call on Christ are our sisters and brothers in him.

Who can we identify, who do we know are our brothers and sisters in Christ? Only those who are in the Church, the Body of Christ, not some amorphous body of believers who call on Christ and reject the Church. Those outside of Church we cannot claim as brothers and sisters in faith.

Perhaps our Catholic-Orthodox convergence will happen when the post-Vatican II crowd retires. We cannot have a meaningful dialogue with people, such as Fr. Ryland, who may have left his Protestant assembly but didn't leave his Protestant mindset—trying to find answers in the Bible on his own rather than in the Holy Councils proclaimed by the Church.

[kosta50]

The Orthodox too have a council and within Greece, say, The Greek Orthodox Patriarch has primacy

Just a technical note, Cronos: the Church of Greece has a Metropolitan, not a Patriarch. Too complicated to delve into here, his rank is that of a patriarch.

[kosta50]

bronxville "The Orthodox Church have changed in substantial doctrine - the Catholics never have...perhaps the result of no parenting?"

Kolo: I'm sure the Orthodox contingent here would just love to hear what "substantial doctrine" of The Church Rome thinks we have "changed". Change, b, is not something we are known for so hearing where we have changed from the likes of the kaleidoscopic Rome will be fascinating.

Strange indeed that someone would make such an allegation, but it will be intersting to see a learned reply from our bronxville expert. I would only like to mention that the biggest change in the Church in 2,000 years was made in 1964, and it's called the Vatican II. I guess for the crowd who think Church "tradition" began 45 years ago, the Orthodox would indeed seem to be out of synch!

[Nosterrex]

Long before Martin Luther was ever born, the dispute over the catholicity of Rome existed. It still does today. Rome's claims have always been at best extravagant. I would think that Rome would be reluctant to base someone’s church identification on the date of a church's origin. If that were true, I would think that they would all be Eastern Orthodox. If Rome claims primacy based upon St Peter and St Paul, then what of Jerusalem?

I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying the same thing that I did, namely the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the catholic faith. Did I misunderstand you?

You do not have to be Roman Catholic to subscribe to the ecumenical or catholic creeds. As you pointed out, Rome changed the Nicene Creed with the filoque. There are differences in Christology and the issue of icons.

Let us not forget that Pope Honorius was condemned by the Council of Constantinople II as a heretic. Then you have the problem of three different popes both claiming Peter's Chair at the same time. Everyone in Europe was excommunicated at least twice. The silliness just goes on and on and on.

[Blogger]

Every group mentioned experienced institutional persecution by the RCC. Whether or not I agree with their theology is immaterial. We do not burn folks at the stake with whom we disagree and the RCC had no such authority under Scripture to do such a thing.

[Blogger]

I stated as much. Up until roughly the 1500’s, however, the RCC was brutal against anyone who disagreed with their theology.

[Cronos]

Every group mentioned experienced institutional persecution by the RCC.

firstly, as repeated ad naueseum, there is no RCC, there is The Church. Secondly, at the time of the Donatists etc. there was no separation between Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental (coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian etc) Churchs, hence there was a united orthodoxy.

Thirdly, there was no persecution by The Church -- as my post tells you, the persecution was conducted by civil authorities -- for Donatists, Constantine didn't like being called the Devil and the DOnatists were supported by an opposing claimant to the Dominus post. ditto for the other heresies.

Finally, if you let a heresy live on, it corrupts innumerable innocents -- cases in point: Mormonism and Islam, both heresies from Christianity and look at what THEY have wrought on the world.

[Blogger]

Finally, there was no persecution of the people, rather steady denunciation of the false prophecies This statement is simply untrue.

[Cronos]

I stated as much. Up until roughly the 1500’s, however, the RCC was brutal against anyone who disagreed with their theology.

Repeating again -- no RCC exists/existed, there is The Church, period. Secondly, does that mean that you support Gnostics like the Cathar who taught that Yhwh was a demiurge and not true God whereas Christ came from a "higher" God?

Thirdly -- the orthodox catholic Church hardly participated in any persecutions, as the other posts here state, the civil authorities even during the inquisition were brutal whereas the religious courts only had a 20% conviction (as opposed to 90% of the civil courts) and no torture like the civil courts

Civil courts will be more brutal -- like the Salem witch hunt courts...

[Cronos]

Cronos: They believed that the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maxima superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles. They believed that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed. Finally, there was no persecution of the people, rather steady denunciation of the false prophecies

Blogger: This statement is simply untrue.

That statement is completely TRUE -- do you have any proof for persecution of the MOntanists who had their own prophets and prophetesses?

[Cronos]

let's take other -- Paulicians. They were Gnostics dualists who believe that God and Satan were equal in power -- The Evil Spirit is the author and lord of the present world while the Good Spirit is the lord of the future world.

They rejected the TAnakh (the Old Testament) as they believed that Yahweh was the Evil Spirit and Christ came down fromheaven to emancipate humans from the body and from the world , which are evil.

Do you agree with this theology? Is this part of your belief system as a Baptist?

Come on, this was pure heresy that corrupts.

[Yudan]

“...what it the Biblical foundation for the Papacy?”

There’s not one. I’m Orthodox and do not subscribe to such to begin with.

I wasn’t defending the Papal Monarchy, but rather Apostolic succession is important because it represents the unadulterated passing down of the traditions of Faith since the time of the Apostles. Thessalonians 2:15.

[Blogger]

firstly, as repeated ad naueseum, there is no RCC, there is The Church. Secondly, at the time of the Donatists etc. there was no separation between Catholic, Orthodox or Oriental (coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian etc) Churchs, hence there was a united orthodoxy.
Word games. Not interested. The seat of the church was in Rome and they made a very big deal about that, so it is the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Greek church or the Russian Church. It is the church emanating from Rome per the fraudulent 'Donation of Constantine'.

Thirdly, there was no persecution by The Church -- as my post tells you, the persecution was conducted by civil authorities -- for Donatists, Constantine didn't like being called the Devil and the DOnatists were supported by an opposing claimant to the Dominus post. ditto for the other heresies.
The Roman Catholic church was a state church. To say that it didn't persecute is ludicrous. When the state acted - often it did so at the instigation of the church. Tell Copernicus and Galileo they never persecuted. Tell any of the groups mentioned.

Finally, if you let a heresy live on, it corrupts innumerable innocents -- cases in point: Mormonism and Islam, both heresies from Christianity and look at what THEY have wrought on the world.
So we burn them at the stake? That was what Christ taught? Scary terrorist faith there.

[Blogger]

I refer you to post 390.

[Petronski]

...Eucharettes...

LOL

I like that one.