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.

[Blogger]

I have a Masters in history specializing in the Middle Ages. I have read primary sources. I also have read Carroll and don’t agree with everything he says. But to imply that the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t the persecutor throughout most of history is to deny history.

[Blogger]

Cronos, you are the one who skipped subjects. Just as you have been attempting to switch the subject from “Was the Catholic Church the persecutor of others throughout much of history?” to “Do you agree with this group or that group?” The latter question is completely and totally irrelevant as to whether or not the former happened. Thus, you won’t get an answer for you question because it is not germane to the subject.

[Blogger]

My faith in God is greater than that. God does not tell us to persecute or harm our enemies in any way. The Islamic incursions into Christian lands deserved MILITARY countering. It was not Scriptural though to go on a religious crusade involving violence.

[Blogger]

The Catholic church sees Rome as supreme. The Orthodox, while similar in much doctrine is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic church. The Orthodox, while sometimes a persecutor itself was also persecuted by Rome and others as they are being today. They have supported Roman primacy off and on (more on than off today). The Western churches were largely persecuted by the Roman Catholic institution - not the Orthodox. ROMAN because the seat of that institution is in Rome.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/michael_theschism.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece

[Kolokotronis]

“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.”

The ecclesiology of The Church has not changed since 1054, Y. There is a schism, a particularly long one but that does not change the Ecumenical Council defined ecclesiology of The Church, despite the uncanonical behavior of some bishops of both the East and the West over the decades and centuries.

[Yudan]

Yes, I did mean 2 Ths 2:15, thank you for catching my typo.

My point is not that there is scriptural mandate for apostolic succession, Puget. But that the Orthodox Church followed through on that mandate from St. Paul to keep the traditions - by the means of unbroken succession.

[Kolokotronis]

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

And yet the bishops who determined just which books of scripture make up the Bible, adherence to which you use as the measure of a man’s Christianity, judged a man’s Christianity on precisely the same Creed Kosta and I do. Was their faith in The Church rather than Christ, and if so, why do you accept what they and by extension, The Church, say constitutes the Bible?

[Yudan]

LOL! I’m going to assume you’re just tweaking me. I’m pretty sure any attempt to return to 5 Patriarchs would result in a schism of SEISMIC proportions.

“...but what about new Patriarchs, new lands? There’s a lot of discussion :)”

Indeed it is, Cronos. Indeed it is.

[Nosterrex]

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. My two closest friends are Fr. Ken (RC) and Fr. Tom (AEOC). We were all ordained about the same time and served our first congregations in Sioux City. We used to meet every Monday and commiserate with one another. I still attend the Easter Vigil with the Orthodox and the Palm Sunday Procession with the Roman Catholic church church across the street. I even had the opportunity to hear Fr. John Meyendorf and Fr. Thomas Hopko about ten years ago or so. Though you probably couldn't tell it from my last posting, but I have a great respect for Rome and Constantinople.

If I were ever to leave the Lutheran church, I would most likely become Orthodox. Having had to listen to Fr. Ken and Fr. Tom for the last thirty years, I have no illusions about either church body. We all have our tell of woes.

[Kolokotronis]

“I have no illusions about either church body.”

That’s a very good and wise thing, Father! There are any of a number of reasons why it is said that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

Some day when you find the time, read the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias II and a group of Thubingen Divines of the generation after Luther. I wonder, had it been Luther himself who wrote to the EP, if matters might have taken a different turn.

[Salvation]

Persecution of Catholics in China also.

How about in Germany? After the Jews, the Nazis came after the Catholics.

[Salvation]

Have you really looked at the Crusades and what really happened? It wasn’t all the doing of the Catholic Church, but rather some very enthusiastic individuals opposed to the Moslem takeover of Europe, etc.

Yes, it did go overboard, but the Catholic Church has apologized for that I believe.

[Salvation]

I have a son and daughter in law, both Catholics, attending a Presbyterian mega church. I half-way understand your remark to the priest.

[kosta50]

The Orthodox, while sometimes a persecutor itself was also persecuted by Rome and others as they are being today

Examples of orthodox persecution please.

[kosta50]

Then your faith is in your church, not Christ.

The alternative (not really) is to believe whatever you make it out to be.

I call all men brothers who profess faith and salvation through Christ. Even those who profess that Satan is his brother? In other words, Christ is a label for any belief of men.

Their church or expression of faith does not restrict their Christianity.

That's for sure. Christianity, then, according to you, is any belief as long as there is a Christ-label attached to it.

That is between them and God to sort out.

That's true for any religion.

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

So whatever they believe in, as long as they use the Bible, anything goes? Is that your dogma and a creed? There are bible thumpers who believe Christ was adopted by the Father; others believe he was only an image of man but never truly a man; some say he never died; others believe he was merely a human anointed by God; others yet, believe he was Satan's brother; some teach that he is a creature. They all have in common one thing: they all adhere to the Bible.

[wardaddy]

hey now...I get tired of Catholics here preening too but the Crusades is one thing they got mostly right

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The alternative (not really) is to believe whatever you make it out to be.

No, the alternative is to believe in the teachings of the Bible and the words of Christ.

Even those who profess that Satan is his brother? In other words, Christ is a label for any belief of men.

And who would those be? Please explain. I know of no Christian who professes such. They do not claim salvation only through Christ.

That's for sure. Christianity, then, according to you, is any belief as long as there is a Christ-label attached to it.

If you wish to put words in my mouth, then you have already lost the debate. Christianity is following the words and teachings of Christ. This should be self-explanatory.

So whatever they believe in, as long as they use the Bible, anything goes?

If it is Biblical, then they are Christians, yes. You cannot follow teachings that are outside the Bible and call yourself a Christian. Whether you worship in an Orthodox church, a high church, or a progressive rock-and-roll church, if you have the Bible - and only the Bible - as the source for your relationship with God then you are a Christian.

There are bible thumpers who believe Christ was adopted by the Father; others believe he was only an image of man but never truly a man; some say he never died; others believe he was merely a human anointed by God; others yet, believe he was Satan's brother; some teach that he is a creature. They all have in common one thing: they all adhere to the Bible.

No they don't; their beliefs are not supported by the Bible. Much like the belief about the primacy of the pope and his ability to make pronouncements ex cathedra.

Here's the bottom line: if it's backed up by the Bible, it's Christian. Period. If not, it's not. It's that simple.

[kosta50]

No, the alternative is to believe in the teachings of the Bible and the words of Christ

According to whom? You?

And who would those be? Please explain. I know of no Christian who professes such. They do not claim salvation only through Christ

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as most glaring examples.

Christianity is following the words and teachings of Christ. This should be self-explanatory

According to whose interpretation? Yours?

If it is Biblical, then they are Christians, yes

Adoptionsits say Jesus was not God when he was born, but was adopted by the Father ans made divine. They say his baptism (as narrated by Mark) proves it. Do you know the history of Christianity at all?

You cannot follow teachings that are outside the Bible and call yourself a Christian

I hate to tell you this, but that's exactly what the Christians did for a few centuries before the bible was put together for them by the Church hierarchs. The Church preceded the Bible.

Where does that say in the Bible? And how do you know that? because Martin Luther said so?

No they don't; their beliefs are not supported by the Bible. Much like the belief about the primacy of the pope and his ability to make pronouncements ex cathedra.

Well, they sure do. For instance there is an Evangelical site that claims the Bible doesn't teach Jesus was/is divine. They quote from the Bible.

The primacy of the pope, at least as far as the Catholics are concerned is clearly spelled out in Matthew's Gospel (16:19) and other places in the New Testament. Ex cathdera is an ecclesial and not a biblical issue, and is taken on faith.

But I could surmise that you believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Not only that, I bet you probably believe that he did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit! How do you know that? Because the Bible says so? The Bible doesn't. None of the Gospels are signed. None claims to be inspired. How is that different than ex-cathedra?

Here's the bottom line: if it's backed up by the Bible, it's Christian. Period. If not, it's not. It's that simple.

But we have so many different sects and cults that use the same Bible and preach a different gospel. So, it's not that simple and it's can't all be Christian because a lot of what these sects preach contradicts the preaching of the other sects and cults.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

According to whom? You?

Jesus, in Matthew 23.

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as most glaring examples.

And then you would be wrong. Mormons believe salvation is through faith AND works and only through their church (sound familiar?), and Jehovah's Witnesses not only deny that Christ was fully God and fully man, but that again it is by works that you are saved.

Meaning that both deny the teachings and truths found in the Bible about salvation, sola fide.

According to whose interpretation? Yours?

No interpretation needed. Which command or parable of Jesus do you feel needs interpretation?

Adoptionsits say Jesus was not God when he was born, but was adopted by the Father ans made divine. They say his baptism (as narrated by Mark) proves it. Do you know the history of Christianity at all?

Yes, which is clearly not Biblical. Thus those people cannot be Christians, as they deny the words of the Bible and of Christ.

I hate to tell you this, but that's exactly what the Christians did for a few centuries before the bible was put together for them by the Church hierarchs. The Church preceded the Bible.

No, it had the teachings - written and verbal - of Christ, as well as the Old Testament. Please see 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for Paul referring to these same sources.

But we have so many different sects and cults that use the same Bible and preach a different gospel. So, it's not that simple and it's can't all be Christian because a lot of what these sects preach contradicts the preaching of the other sects and cults.

So for you, Christianity is a "democratic" process where we get around and debate and agree what is the meaning of being Christian? What is your foundation for your decision? What do you have outside the Bible, and the words of Christ?

[Cronos]

Let's see -- the Spanish Inquisition tested who? CAtholics to see no lapses. How many killed? If you check the religious courts this was SHOCK! between 826 and 1080 EVen if you check the number of trials -- 150,000, and assume that the number of executions was 2% (far less than normal for it's time), that's only 3000 killed. WAs the killing bad? YES. Was it as gruesome the media portrays it? NO

What was the background for this? Spain was in the process of throwing out the Muslims who had invaded. The presence of Muslims rulers threw the entire culture out of wack leading to extreme measures (we saw this in our own time in the Balkans -- EVERYWHERE the Muslims conquered, they caused this social upheaval)


Ditto for the crusades. You do realise that all of North Africa was Christian until the 10th century? St Augustine was a Berber! What we'd call a Moor!

And Syria and Egypt were 100% Christian -- Alexandria was one of the first 3 Patriarchies -- with Roma and Antioch. Iraq was mostly Christian

Then Islamm came and put all of these communities under pressure (you see it even now -- the Copts are persecuted in Egypt and the Christians in Iraq, whose church dates back to the Apostles, have been hounded out now) -- this was bad but not as bad as under the Caliph Hakim who destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and molested and killed pilgrims to the Holy Land.

The Crusades were called to protect our holy places.

Do you disagree with that sentiment? Do you think that Christendom should have meekly stood by and let the Muslims keep Al Andalus (Spain), the Balkans, etc.?