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.

[Cronos]

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

As an Orthodox you don't subscribe to the Patriarchy??? You don't subscribe to the position of Rome as the first among equals?

There is no Papal Monarchy -- there were lapses during the Middle Ages but do you think the present Popes in any way follow the idea of a Papal Monarchy? Didn't you see the funeral of Pope John Paul II when the ceremony was presided over by the Patriarchs together?

[Kolokotronis]

“...Eucharettes...

LOL

I like that one.”

:) Have a good Sunday, P!

[Cronos]

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'.

So, you're saying the seat of the Church during the Donatist heresy (300 AD) was in Rome? I think the Eastern Orthodox would have something to say about that.

[Cronos]

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'.

The Greek Orthodox Church as kosta described has a Metropolitan as it's head. Ditto for the Russian (I think), hence they are in charge of their national Churches. In opposition you have the Patriarch of Alexandria who is the Patriarch of all of Africa. And you have the Pope who is the Patriarch of the West -- ALL of the West outside the other Patriarchates inthe East.

Have you heard of the Catholic Maronite Church by any chance? You do know that the head of That Church is an equal with the Pope? And yes that IS part of The Church.

The Catholic Church consists of all of these, the RCC was an exonym that protesting groups gave to the Mother Church and it is wrong. The correct term is CAtholic Church or simply The Church.

[Yudan]

Good morning, Cronos.

I’m not blaming anyone for anything. On June 24, 2004, during a visit to the Vatican by His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I, Pope John Paul II apologized for the Sacking of Constantinople. This is not in dispute.

If he had nothing to apologize for, then it would seem to have necessarily been an act of disingenuineness for him to do so.

[Cronos]

Cronos: 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.

Blogger: 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.

Firstly, in 300 AD there was no "state Church" -- Constantine only lifted the persecution against the Christians, he did not make it the "state Church". And you do realise that you now include the orthodox and orientals as "The Roman Catholic Church" of you say this was the orthodox church in 300 AD......

Finally, the Church did not prosecute -- didn't you READ my posts? Refer to any articles, read any history books and you'll see that for the Donatists, the persecution was conducted by Constantine and Valentian...

And I gave you adequate examples of WHY the civil authorities did so and it was not at the instigation of the orthodox Church.

[Cronos]

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

you then think that if we hadn't curtailed the heresy of Mohammed, nipped it in the bud, then life would be the same?

[Cronos]

I refer you to the persecutions of the Catholics by Protestants in Englands, Ireland and Scotland. Do you agree with those?

[Yudan]

Yes, I subscribe to the Patriarchy. However, Patriarchs cannot issue theological fiats. Bishops do not answer to one another individually, they answer Synods of Bishops.

No, to first among equals. Rome and the East are not in communion.

[Petronski]

Oh, what are all these facts you burden us with?

[Kolokotronis]

“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?”

Rome’s claims to primacy are ancient and perfectly valid but they have little or nothing to do with +Peter. If they did, Antioch would be the firs See of The Church. The claims are based on the decisions of Ecumenical Councils which named Rome as the primatial See because it was the original seat of The Empire. The problem arises in determining what that primacy means, N.

“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?”

Well, yes and no. Rome claims to be the perfect expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that the “fullness” of The Church is found ONLY in Roman Catholicism. I suggest that that is nonsense. If it is true, then all Roman Catholics ought to run right over to the nearest Episcopal Church and join up, complete with partnered gay bishops and female hierarchs with rainbow decorated oven mitts for mitres, since it is those Episcopalians who first clearly articulated the theology of “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing”! Rome has obviously operated on that less than patristic modus for at least the past 40 years, foisting on its laity the same sort of innovative and bizarre practices and ecclesiology that the ‘Piskies have promoted.

There are those among the Orthodox who maintain that the Latins are not at all Catholics nor are they members of The Church. I am not one of them but when I read articles from Roman sources like this one, I am reminded of just how far the Church of Rome has removed itself from The Church of the first millenium.

[Kolokotronis]

“No, to first among equals. Rome and the East are not in communion.”

Ah, Yudan, the fact that the Bishop of Rome is presently in schism from the rest of The Church does not change the ecclesiology of The Church. The Bishop of Rome is indeed the first among equals because that is what the Councils declared, though because of the Schism, he cannot exercise that primacy which therefore has fallen to Constantinople de facto.

[Cronos]

On June 24, 2004, during a visit to the Vatican by His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I, Pope John Paul II apologized for the Sacking of Constantinople. This is not in dispute.If he had nothing to apologize for, then it would seem to have necessarily been an act of disingenuineness for him to do so

Did you READ the apology?? The Pope's apology had asked forgiveness of God for "sins of action and omission" by Catholics against the Orthodox, including those of the Crusades, including the sacking of Constantinople on April 13, 1204, when Crusaders sacked and looted the city for three days.

The pope apologised on BEHALF of the Catholics who had done that heinous deed. Those people were NOT sanctioned, they were NOT told, they were NOT commanded, ordered, allowed to or in any way made to sack Constantinople by the Pope, the clergy or The Western Church. the Church was not the instigator of the sacking, it meant the Crusades to DEFEND Christendom in the East, not attack it or defile it or destroy it.

READ about the sacking -- the Venetian merchants wants this done to allow Venice supremacy in the eastern mediterranean. Didn't the pope excommunicate all who participated in the attack when he heard about it?

Sheesh -- our Patriarch apologises to your Patriarch for the actions conducted 800 years agao by some excommunicated Catholics acting on THEIR own accord NOT sanctioned by The Church and you twist that to say that the Patriarch of the West and The Church in the West was the instigator of the attack on Constantinople?

Shame on you for not understanding that but twisting it around.

If the Georgian Orthodox Patriarch next apologised for the actions of the lapsed Orthodox Stalin, would that mean that the Georgian Church had anything to do with Stalin's purges? NO, of course not. It's the same thing here. The apology was meant to show to the East that we are serious about ending the political and historical angst between us before we start on the discussions of dogma.

Why? Because we need to talk about serious things like why the Spanish priests put the filioque and to remove it (I've repeated in other articles that this filioque was meant to combat Arianism that was promoted by the visigothis kings in Spain and this was targetted at THEM, no offense meant to the orthodox, but the wording changes between Latin and Greek -- the filioque is NOT meant to signify that the Holy Spirit proceeds from TWO sources but that Jesus is not a "lesser God" as the Arians proposed. I've also said that the Orthodox are correct that this should have only been amended, if at all, in an ecumenical council. anyway I digress)

So, we have to clear out all the historical angst before we can discuss the REAL important things (they're no point discussing the nature of the Theotokos if someone from the orthodox benches pops up and says "Says you, you guys attacked us in 1204!!! Why should we trust you 800 years later??".

[Mr Rogers]

“So, of course you have no problem with the persecution of Catholics in England, Ireland, Scotland, etc?”

As I pointed out earlier, Baptists tend to believe in Potlucks and Shooting the Breeze, not burning at stakes. We prefer to persecute cows and potatoes...

[Cronos]

Reciting the apology as stated by the Pope

Eight hundred years after the Fourth Crusade, Pope John Paul II twice expressed sorrow for the events of the Fourth Crusade. In 2001, he wrote to Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens, saying, "It is tragic that the assailants, who set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret."[8] In 2004, while Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople, was visiting the Vatican, John Paul II asked, "How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust."

We're apologizing for Latin Christians who shouldn't have done what they did.

[Mr Rogers]

“Apostolic succession prevents the creeping in of errors like the Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc.”

Scripture does that equally well. Yes, there are folks who will break away and believe what they want - but surely you don’t claim having a Pope has prevented that from happening to the Catholic Church?

Apostolic succession didn’t prevent splits. I’d also point out that Mormons didn’t split from the Church - they wrote new scripture, and made up their religion without reference to Christianity.

[Yudan]

Mea culpa for not being clearer, I was speaking practically and should have thought longer before I typed (I’m getting showered and dressed, sorry). You are indeed, of course, correct

[Cronos]

The Orthodox Church does not deny the Primacy of the Successor of Peter, the Patriarch of Rome. However, that "Primacy" is interpreted as "First Among Equals" and not "Supreme Infallible Ruler".

And that's something Pope JP II and Pope Benedict are emphasising.

So, if you are Orthodox you would have to state that the Patriarch of the West is the first among equals. This is what was The declaration of Ravenna in 2007 re-asserted and re-stated the notion that the bishop of Rome is indeed the protos, although future discussions are to be held on the concrete ecclesiological exercise of papal primacy. We Catholics ARE open to this discussion.

Let's face facts -- in the centuries between 450 and 800, the Patriarch of the West was the only thing keeping civilisation alive in the West, unlike the East that had the stability of The Empire. Secondly, just like in the East where the Patriarch of Constantinople had control over all the Greeks and the Bulgarians etc. it could be argued the same for the Patriarch of the West (only while in the east you had definied political distinctions between the Basileus in Constantinople and the Tsar of all Bulgaria, you didn't have that in the West)

[Yudan]

Of course, OF COURSE, if - IF - communion between Rome and the East were to be restored, the Church would return to the ecclesial structure it was in prior to 1054.

[Cronos]

you put it far more succintly than I did!