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]

I thought the Roman Catholic Church was formed in the council of Trent

Ok, that was funny!

[Cronos]

If you promised certain benefits to others in exchange for their paying money for your pet project, you would be considered to be fundraising. That would be called funding.

Fundraising differs from funding -- check your nearest dictionary.

[Cronos]

The fact that you refuse to yield to historical fact is no problem of mine

The problem is you are making up your own historical "facts". And twisting facts -- fund-raising=funding, etc.

[Blogger]

fund-rais⋅ing   /ˈfʌndˌreɪzɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fuhnd-rey-zing] Show IPA Use fundraising in a Sentence –noun the act or process of raising funds, as for nonprofit organizations or for a political cause. Also, fundraising.

[Cronos]

The dust you see on this thread is just my shaking it off my feet with this

Ah, now that's a standard "Bun-Again" statement: "I don't like so I shaketh offeth my feeteth and leaveth. Forsooth!"

Typical, state incorrect "facts" like fund-raising is the same as funding and complete out of context points and then storming off when told they were wrong. That's true for Biblical discussions as much as historical discussions with an "evangelical" -- more Benny Hill than substance.

[Cronos]

Is the term "Christian" God inspired or man made.

Logically we can't ask that question as they are not two distinct sub-sets. Something could be man-made and yet inspired by God.

[Cronos]

So, you agree that The Church never funded the crusades. btw, fund-raising = "the act or process of raising funds, as for nonprofit organizations or for a political cause." while funding = verb (used with object)
5. to provide a fund to pay the interest or principal of (a debt).
6. to convert (general outstanding debts) into a more or less permanent debt, represented by interest-bearing bonds.
7. to allocate or provide funds for (a program, project, etc.).


And yet, you say funding is the same as fund-raising.

Now ask yourself, what else have you gotten wrong? Or what else have you been taught wrong?

Those are the fundamental questions those outside The Church need to ask -- I don't blame you, I blame your teachers and their teachers who led the sheep astray.

[Cronos]

Raising funds to use is different from FUNDING

The Pope didn't say "Take this $1 billion and go protect Christians in the Holy Land". He did ask the nobles to raise funds to go protect Christians.

That's a different thing from funding....

So, in conclusion, the Crusades -- an act that aimed to protect Christians (which, for some reason you disagree with) -- were called by The Pope, asking the nobility to think of a higher cause beyond fighting amongst themselves.

Now, these knights needed arms, horses etc. and where would that money come from? The Pope asked the nobility in each country to oblige and to raise their own funds. The Kings, Emperors, Dukes etc. raised their own armies with their own funds and proceeded off to protect Christians.

[Cronos]

Let's go through your links one by one:

1. ...he granted partial indulgences for material contributions to crusading This says that The Church banned Jousting Tournaments and other wars IN Europe were in effect BANNED by The Church -- the focus of the fighting armies in Christendom was supposed to be directed at the enemy, not at each other.

I think that was a good thing, don't you?

The Pope explicitly offered a full remission of sins if you went to protect persecuted Christians. He granted partial indulgences for material contributions to crusading -- in fact the article you quote states "This was not cynical fund-raising. For Pope Innocent it was a method of increasing participation in crusading -- of mobilising Christendom for the liberation of Jerusalem." --> do you somehow oppose the Pope for trying to liberate Jerusalem from Islamic hands, when those Caliphs had tried to destroy all our Churches there?

2. In 1453 the Turks finally sacked Constantinople, news of which terrified European leaders. Pope Nicholas V tried to organise a crusade to recover the city, but it was yet another failure. Pope Callistus III did manage to organise one, funded by the sale of indulgences, but it was diverted and finished up attacking Genoa.

The link you posted states " The Church regarded crusaders as military pilgrims. They took vows and were rewarded with privileges of protection for their property at home. Any legal proceedings against them were suspended"

It says as you quote "In 1453 the Turks finally sacked Constantinople, news of which terrified European leaders. Pope Nicholas V tried to organise a crusade to recover the city, but it was yet another failure. Pope Callistus III did manage to organise one, funded by the sale of indulgences, but it was diverted and finished up attacking Genoa. " -- I've not found ANY other link or historical document that talks about Pope Callistus III selling indulgences for this.

3. Kings and catholic princes who took from funds were promised indulgences if it a part was given for the Crusades or for the building of St Peter’s Basilica.

Again, no funding of crusades -- the princes were encouraged to Fund it themselves

4. A sale of indulgences was a promise that anyone who funded or fought in the Pope’s wars and crusades would be absolved of all of their sins and get a free trip to heaven

Again -- someone else funded, not the pope!

[marbren]

My perspective of church history is one of schisms and splits resulting in what we have today. I feel there are believers and unbelievers in every Christian denomination. Christian unity of believers is only found in the true invisible church. It is found only among those who abide in the vine, Jesus Christ our Lord.

[marbren]

Weren't there non Pope following Christians in the first millennium of the Church? Walenses(sp) or something?

[Cronos]

Weren't there non Pope following Christians in the first millennium of the Church?

Yup -- the Pope is properly the Patriach of the West. There were Christians under the Patriach of Constantinople, under the Pope of Egypt (the Copts, the current Pope of the Copts is Pope Shenouda), under the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church, under the Catholicos of the Malabar Christians in India, under the Patriarch of Antioch etc. etc. However they were all within the Apostolic Church irrespective of which bishop they had

[Blogger]

I WILL PUT THIS IN BIG LETTERS SO YOU MAY ACTUALLY READ IT. I AM THROUGH WITH THE CONVERSATION. ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING. I HAVE MOVED ON TO OTHER THINGS. YOU AND PETRO TALK ALL YOU WANT. I'M OUTTA HERE.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

If that is the case then why do you have so many radically different understandings and groups?

Are they radically different understandings? No. They can have different dogma (sprinkling or immersion, for example) and radically different expressions of worship, but the fundamental spiritual truths about Christianity are all the same.

There are many denominations because not all men are reached with the same expressions. We are called to be fishers of men - if you're a fisherman, you know you use different bait for different fish and even different locations/time of day.

Many will be awed and completely captured by the ritual of High church (by that, I mean Catholicism - Latin and Orthodox, High Lutheranism, Anglicans, etc). Others will find it hollow and dry, and may be reached through Baptists, or Methodists, or another.

For example, the great awakening that John Wesley led, in the 1700s in England. All those great hymns of faith he wrote? Most of the tunes were common drinking songs! He used songs that people knew, that people related to, and added words that spoke the truth of Jesus Christ. The message is what matters, not the specifics of the delivery.

Would the truths revealed by the celebration of Mass change if the order of the liturgy changed? Say, the homily happened at the very beginning of mass?

JESUS is the way, not any institution of man! Most Protestant denominations (especially the more evangelical ones) try to model how Jesus preached and evangelized - in the common tongue, in the streets and ways of the common people. He did not stay shuttered in the temples, he did not speak only Greek or Latin. He walked among the sinners, he spoke their common language.

Remember the words of Jesus when He said "Come unto Me all who are weary and burdened, I will give you rest" (Mt 11:28). We are to come to Him, not a particular church or building or even expression of faith. The call is not to a denomination; the call is to God.

Church needs to be relevant to people so they can be made aware of Jesus. Getting a person into a church is not the end; getting a person into a church to meet God is the end! We want them to meet Jesus as He called them. However that happens is, I would submit, the absolutely correct way, the way Jesus meant it to be. And thus is "The Church".

[Cronos]

you’re dusting your feet and admitting you’re wrong?

[Cronos]

Pardon me for forgetting what denomination you belong to, but you are correct about the external ritual attracting people to High Church or Low Church (Anglican v/s Methodism) -- but, sticking to those two only, is there any difference theologically between them?

The ONE fundamental spiritual truth that I find in many Protestant groups that I really cannot reconcile with is the idea of pre-destination, to me it smacks of the idea of a cruel God which I can't reconcile with my image of a loving Christian God.

The other points, especially the administrative issues (is the Pope our bishop or not) are not as significant as this basic idea of God.

One fear that I have for most Protestant groups is that, the way I read history is that I see Protestant groups going from the Anglicans and Lutherans who initially taught the same orthodox teachings, but then you had changes in the form of Calvinist teachings, then the next step was Unitarians and it seems like all inevitably head towards serious non-Christian beliefs like Mormons etc.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

in neither of those cases did the Pope FUND any Crusade. That is what Blogger said. And that was a false, wrong, incorrect statement.

Not quite correct; we see that the fourth Crusade (the one led by Innocent III) was to have the ships and supplies paid for by the Pope.

And of course the Albigensian crusade was "funded" by Innocent III breaking tradition and promising to the Northern princes all the spoils of war - including land - if they fought for him.

so let's revisit what Blogger said:

The Popes proclaimed the crusades and funded the crusades. They sold indulgences promising eternal life for those who bought them. To declare otherwise is simply dishonest.

There are three claims here:

1. Popes proclaimed/called for the crusades
2. Popes funded the crusades
3. Popes sold indulgences for eternal life

I assume we are all in agreement over claim 1 - the Popes (yes, several) issued several Papal bulls calling for most of the crusades. That is not in question. So that claim is pretty much spot-on.

Claim 2, I would say there is evidence for and against. To make a claim of absolute (funded all/didn't fund any) is not tenable; at best, we have evidence that Innocent funded at least some portion of the fourth crusade!

And, we have evidence that the Popes allowed the secular kings and princes to collect and keep tithes for funding the crusades. Forgiveness of "debt" is effectively payment of funds (at least the IRS thinks so...:)). Was it a direct cash transaction? No, but it was a financial arrangement that enabled the funding of the crusades.

Additionally, the popes offered "free" indulgences and promises of guaranteed entry into Heaven for any crusader killed in battle; that was a powerful enticement for troops and crusaders to join the fray, meaning that - while not a cash payment - it was a gift which only the Church could give that resulted in raising men (meaning the secular powers didn't have to pay for them).

Claim 3, selling of indulgences. We do know that at least Pope Leo X sold indulgences to fund the crusades. No, ultimately his crusade fizzled out and never happened, but there is no doubt that he sold them.

So, taken as a whole, I would say that Blogger was correct on points 1 and 3, and partially correct on point 2; the Popes may not have directly financed battle, but they did finance the supply and operations - either directly (Innocent III, for example) or indirectly by enabling the princes and kings to more affordably raise their armies.

Does this condemn the Catholic Church for all times? No, and any who claims it should be ashamed! ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. That includes institutions run by men.

However, it also means that Catholics should not deny the facts; it is by recognizing the weakness in all institutions run by men that we are reminded to turn back to God! Whatever we do, wherever we work, whatever institution we hold to will - WILL - fail. We must always put God above anything else or we will not see the failures, and they will continue, and that will do more damage to the Kingdom of Heaven than the original failure itself.

[Petronski]

You should understand something.

I have not and am not (and probably will not) post to you in order to elicit a response or invite you to engage in conversation.

When I reply to posts like yours, it is to correct the errors. Respond or not, but don’t labor under any false notion that I’m trying to engage in—or goad you into—conversation.

[Petronski]

2. Popes funded the crusades

False.

3. Popes sold indulgences for eternal life

False.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Fundraising differs from funding -- check your nearest dictionary.

So the Roman soldiers who whipped Christ, who beat Him, who made the crucifix, and who nailed and tied Him to the cross didn't really kill Him, He died a natural death because of exposure and the inability to breathe in an awkward position.

If you raise funds for a criminal activity (say, you fund the purchase of land and materials for a meth lab), do not expect to be absolved of the resulting crime! It may have been an indirect involvement in the funding of the crusades, but it was funding nevertheless.