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.

[Yudan]

I DID read the apology and recognize it for what it was, an effort to heal a 900 year old wound inflicted upon the East by misguided Latin Christians.

I don’t believe I twisted anything. An earlier poster indicated atrocities inflicted by Eastern Christians in the name of the Church and the Faith, and I merely turned the point around on him.

THAT’S ALL.

[Cronos]

So, first you say “Oh, the Catholic Church did all the persecuting”, then when asked about persecutions of Catholics you say “Oh, we be baptists, cathars and the like.” Sheesh, talk about jumping points.

[Cronos]

Nuts, didn’t complete my statement. So, there was a historical reason why the Catholic Church developed the way it did while the Orthodox were more closely tied to the State (even under the Turks where there were separate millets to the chagrin of the Romanian Orthodox and Bulgarian Orthodox who had to fight to get their own autocephalous Churches).

[Cronos]

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.

So, you want there to be just 5 Patriarchs -- you want this as per Justinian I's formulation set in the Council in Trullo (592) which ranked the five sees as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalam?

And the spheres of influence to be



So:
1. No GReek Orthodox Patriarch/Metropolitan, no Russian Orthodox, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc. etc.

2. the Patriarchate of Rome to include most of what is now Greece.
3. The rest of the world -- unknown??

The first among equals between the Patriarchs would remain, yes, but what about new Patriarchs, new lands? There's a lot of discussion :)

[Cronos]

That’s NOT all — you said ..If the Pope apologised, then he must have done something... or the Western Church must have been involved with the sacking of Constantinople. THAT is what your statement “If he had nothing to apologize for, then it would seem to have necessarily been an act of disingenuineness for him to do so.” signifies and that is a wrong assumption and a wrong statement.

[Mr Rogers]

“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.”

---

Perhaps this illustration will help clarify:

Thomas Cranmer (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Thomas_Cranmer)

On the accession of Mary he was summoned to the council - most of whom had signed the same device - reprimanded for his conduct, and ordered to confine himself to his palace at Lambeth until the queen’s pleasure was known. He refused to follow the advice of his friends and avoid the fate that was clearly impending over him by flight to the continent.

Any chance of safety that lay in the friendliness of a strong party in the council was more than nullified by the bitter personal enmity of the queen, who could not forgive his share in her mother’s divorce and her own disgrace. On the 14th of September 1553 he was sent to the Tower, where Ridley and Latimer were also confined.

The immediate occasion of his imprisonment was a strongly worded declaration he had written a few days previously against the mass, the celebration of which, he heard, had been re-established at Canterbury. He had not taken steps to publish this, but by some unknown channel a copy reached the council, and it could not be ignored.

In November, with Lady Jane Grey, her husband, and two other Dudleys, Cranmer was condemned for treason. Renard thought he would be executed, but so true a Romanist as Mary could scarcely have an ecclesiastic put to death in consequence of a sentence by a secular court, and Cranmer was reserved for treatment as a heretic by the highest of clerical tribunals, which could not act until parliament had restored the papal jurisdiction.

Accordingly in March 1554 he and his two illustrious fellow-prisoners, Ridley and Latimer, were removed to Oxford, where they were confined in the Bocardo or common prison. Ridley and Latimer were unflinching, and suffered bravely at the stake on the 16th of October 1555.

Cranmer had been tried by a papal commission, over which Bishop Brooks of Gloucester presided, in September 1555. Brooks had no power to give sentence, but reported to Rome, where Cranmer was summoned, but not permitted, to attend. On the 25th of November he was pronounced contumacious by the pope and excommunicated, and a commission was sent to England to degrade him from his office of archbishop. This was done with the usual humiliating ceremonies in Christ Church, Oxford, on the 14th of February 1556, and he was then handed over to the secular power...

About the same time Cranmer subscribed the first two of his “ recantations.”...

...he was eventually induced to revile his whole career and the Reformation. This is what the government wanted. Northumberland’s recantation had done much to discredit the Reformation, Cranmer’s, it was hoped, would complete the work.

Hence the enormous effect of Cranmer’s recovery at the final scene. On the 21st of March he was taken to St Mary’s church, and asked to repeat his recantation in the hearing of the people as he had promised. To the surprise of all he declared with dignity and emphasis that what he had recently done troubled him more than anything he ever did or said in his whole life; that he renounced and refused all his recantations as things written with his hand, contrary to the truth which he thought in his heart; and that as his hand had offended, his hand should be first burned when he came to the fire.

As he had said, his right hand was steadfastly exposed to the flames. The calm cheerfulness and resolution with which he met his fate show that he felt that he had cleared his conscience, and that his recantation of his recantations was a repentance that needed not to be repented of.

---

The state court convicted him of treason. However, he was left alive until the Catholic Church excommunicated him. Only then was sentence carried out.

I don’t think it is right to judge people from long ago with modern standards. I’m certain those people would be appalled at our lack of seriousness about the faith, and bewildered that we WOULDN’T execute a heretic and apostate. Given their willingness to die for their beliefs, I’m not certain we can claim to be their superiors.

[Cronos]

your post has no relevance or linkage to Donatists in any way.

[Mr Rogers]

Where did I say I was a cathar?

“Some were downright dualists, and believed that there are two gods or principles, one of good and the other of evil, both eternal; but as a rule they subordinated the evil to the good. All were universalists in so far as they believed in the ultimate salvation of all men.”

Doesn’t sound like anything I’ve said...

[Mr Rogers]

I was giving an example of how civil and church mixed in persecutions. I don’t even know what a Donatist is...nor do I care. I’m a retired electronic warfare officer, not a historian.

[FourtySeven]

I thought you all might find these interesting.

Note the paragraphs, "It was McGoldrick, not Carroll", and "Depends On Which Anabaptists".

Note the question, "Q: A Baptist friend of mine told me that he is not a Protestant, since the Baptists didn’t break away from the Catholic Church—they had existed all along under various names, such as Anabaptists, Montanists, and Novations. How do I respond? "

The Trail of Blood: Baptist Successionism. (Warning!!! This last link is a PDF file)

[catfish1957]

I am a Presbyterian who is married to a Catholic, and we attend her church. About 8 years ago, the Priest stated that Protestants were a scandalous sect for fleeing from the true church. At the end of service, I told him I was protestant, and thought it was a pretty funny comment coming from the church that sanctioned the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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

How well did it do with indulgences, purgatory, Templars, and the like? Or even the corruption that Martin Luther challenged? Not too well, eh...

Look at the theological splits in the time of Paul and Peter (driving most of the Epistles to be written). Even with the living apostles the church was fractured.

EVERY creation or organization made by man will have failures - including the Church. Apostolic succession cannot save anything human from failing - ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God! It is only by putting our focus on Christ and believing in Him that we can be redeemed and made pure.

The Church is fallible; everything of man is fallible. Apostolic succession is not from Christ, nor is it Biblical. Thus it is a creation of man, which means it too is fallible.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Protestant denominations can’t call The Church a withering limb because we are The Body you broke away from. :)

Protestants - especially evangelicals - will simply worship God and let Him figure out who broke from whom, rather than usurping His position...;)

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Sigh... ok, so what organization do you deem the proper way to steward the flock for millenia?

The model set up in Acts. That seemed to work back then...

The Pope is, remember, the Patriarch of the West. The Patriarch of the Copts, the Patriarch of the Greeks, the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church etc. all are of equal dignity to the Pope. Ditto for the Patriarchs within the Catholic Church like the Catholicos of the Syro-Malabar, the Patriarch of the Maronites etc. -- all equal in dignity and respect.

And the bishops of the Church of Free Methodism in the United States? They allowed into that special clique? After all, we have bishops (who function equivalently to Cardinals in the Catholic tradition), superintendents (much like bishops) and pastors (local churches).

These Bishops are charged with being shepherds for Christ's flock. And that has kept their communities and Churches alive through millenia of persecution

And the bishops of the Protestant denominations aren't?

In contrast, the congregationalist/presbyterian policy of "let's choose our own and sola scriptura"

Yes, because none of those denominations have specified theological statements, nor do they have guiding writings of how church is done, right? They just run open-loop?

A Christian owes no allegiance to a Church; a Christian owes his allegiance to Christ. The two are not the same. One is of man, the other of God.

Finally, you have the "Born-Agains" who basically follow one guy who calls himself a pastor, then jump ship when they don't like tea being served instead of coffee.

Wow. Just wow. You really don't understand 99.9% of evangelical Christians. Your loss, my friend...

It seems you elevate the Church above all. If a pronouncement from the Pope came ex cathedra that supported slavery, would you stay a Catholic? How about gay marriage?

When Church and Bible do not align, the Church is wrong. Period. Put your faith in the Bible and Christ, and then make sure the Church follows. If it doesn't we are told in the Bible to confront our wayward brothers, correct them, and if they do not acknowledge and repent, we are to throw them out.

Seems to me that Martin Luther and the Protestant movement was correct; call your failed brothers to task and if they do not repent then cast them out. The Catholic Church at that time was failed and teaching non-Biblical theology. It was called to the carpet by fellow believers, and since it did not repent, it was rightly rejected.

It is Protestants - not Catholics - who should welcome the other back to the fold!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Similarly for you -- what are your beliefs? Are they orthodox or otherwise?

I see where you are coming from. You are more interested in dogma and publications than the heart and Spirit-driven relationship of man. The questions about a person being part of an apostlic church tradition should have been:

1. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? If so, then you are a Christian.
2. Do you believe in the Apostle's Creed? Then you are Apostolic.

Anything else tells me more about your belief and faith in an organization - as set by man - rather that your relationship with God. Church is not what you do, it is who you are. We are literally the body of Christ! Read that again - the Church is not the body of Christ - WE are the body of Christ. Church is to be subservient to Christ not a replacement. When two or more come together in His name then we are a Church. We do not need a fancy building, or a specific set of rote sayings, or vestments.

Disruption IS good, for it is the only way to keep institutions of man on focus. EVERY institution of man has and WILL fail. Guaranteed. There is no other result possible for anything set up and run by man - even if it is God-inspired! This has been true since the time of Moses. Even with direct, living and tangible examples of the presence of god (the pillars of fire and dust) His people will still fall away. If the children of Israel can stumble with such direct and physical examples, how can we expect a Church to be pure and not stumble?

Disruption is critical to keeping the message pure. Without constant vigilance - the kind that comes from passion and fundamental beliefs, not traditions - institutions not only become stagnant and dead, they wander from their original intent, and can become a replacement for their original goal. The institution becomes the object of worship.

The Catholic Church - the one with the Pope in Vatican City (typically calle Roman Catholicism) - would do well to heed the lessons it can learn from Protestantism. To remember that the Church is but of man. It was God-inspired, but it is organized and run by men. It has been given several wake-up calls when its actions were called - rightly - into question and rebuked. How the Church responds tells me more about its true intentions than what it preaches to be.

Men can repent and change their ways. So can institutions of men. Oh that more institutions would do so! Oh that more men would do so!

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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.

Then your faith is in your church, not Christ. I call all men brothers who profess faith and salvation through Christ. Their church or expression of faith does not restrict their Christianity. That is between them and God to sort out.

I will judge a man to be a Christian based upon his adherence to the Bible, not a creed or dogma.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

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.

I assume you mean 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, wehter by word of mouth or by letter.

There is nothing in there about apostolic succession. There is a call to stay true to the teachings and words passed down from Christ and the Apostles, but no call or even reference to staying true to those who follow in the name of Paul, or Peter.

[Mr Rogers]

“I call all men brothers who profess faith and salvation through Christ.”

You might want to be careful. Many Mormons SAY this, but they have redefined Jesus to be the brother of Satan, and God the Father to be one of many gods.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

This page may be instructive about their views on salvation:

LDS teaching on salvation is that Christ's atonement only covers universal resurrection. They go on to say that the right to forgiveness of personal sins has to be earned by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the LDS organization, plus virtuous living.

and

There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God

Salvation does not come from faith, it comes from works. And it must include Joseph Smith (thus a man being an additional gate to salvation).

Also interesting on that page:

There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Interesting we're seeing the exact same theology expressed by many Roman Catholics (papists) in this thread. Heresy when in the Mormon church, but sound theology when in the Papal Church?

[Blogger]

I admit they happened, but as a Baptist we believe in Freedom of conscience. So do I agree with the persecution of Catholics by the Anglicans? No. Of course not.