Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

God made man in His image and “likeness” . That likeness is to “will” to love. What you just wrote makes God a lier.

Nonsense. God made Adam in His image. Adam made Cain in his image. It is pride and arrogances to think there is anything we have that can please God.

Since you brought up St. Irenaeus of Lyons

3. On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: “For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing,” showing that the “good thing” of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying,] “The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.” And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says:] “Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us.” Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved. - Chapter XX.—God showed himself, by the fall of man, as patient, benign, merciful, mighty to save. Man is therefore most ungrateful, if, unmindful of his own lot, and of the benefits held out to him, he do not acknowledge divine grace.-St. Irenaeus

Please note the title. "Man is most ungrateful, if, unmindful of his own lot, and of the benefits held out to him, he do not acknowledge divine grace." Calvin nor I could have said it any better.

MLG: And, as Marting Luther said of the devil, “Satan is God’s Satan”

Mark: Are you saying that satan is God’s agent? Are you saying that satan’s tempting and evil in the world is God’s doing?

Mark, Judaism considered Satan an angel of God and, who is far from fallen, but God's loyal servant. A cursory reference to the Encyclopedia Judaica will confirm this. The Gospels make a break with this Judaic tradition and place Satan as the fallen angel

Angeology and demonology familiar to Christians can be found in latter-day Judaism (Kabbalah, etc.) and rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism of the 3rd centruy A.D.

Many Protestant, in order to maintain the absolute sovereignty of God, abhor the idea of Satan being a rebellious angel, but an agent of God who acts by God's permission (i.e. the Book of Job). As one Orthodox rabbi said: "how can an angel rebel against G-d? That's ridiculous!"

Judaism was by no means homogenious. It was sectarian at least as much as the Protestant world is today. They both read the same OT and have similar ideas of God. I can understand it from the Jewish point of view, since they a priori reject Christ; but the Protestants try to fit Christ into the OT mindset rather than the other way around.

Dear Harley,
Glad you brought up Blessed Saint Irenaeus.

He says this from....

“Chapter XXXIX.—Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his OWN WILL and CHOICE, to perform God’s commandments, by doing which he avoids the evils prepared for the rebellious.”

“”The light does never ENSLAVE any one by necessity; nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon any one UNWILLING to accept the exercise of His skill. Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their OWN fault, since they have been created FREE agents, and possessed of power over themselves.””

Blessed Irenaeus would have branded Calvin a heretic by this statement alone.

Love does not force!

You’re hanging Calvin,and rightfully so, by using the early Chuech Fathers to try and support his un Christian views on free will.

Try praying for intercession of Blessed Saint Irenaues,rather than twisting what he really says..

I wish you peace of mind and a Blessed Evening!

Here is a few more writings that you might want to read from Blessed Saint Irenaeus,since you want to try and use him to support a reformed point of view.

Chapter XXXVII.—Men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxviii.html

How about this from Blessed Saint Irenaeus

“”Chapter IV.—The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.””
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.v.html

Shall I go on, Dear Brother?

That just means [Augustine] was holy, not infallible. Don't go getting all Latin on me FK!

LOL! I'll try to be good. :)

Long story short, the Latins now accept that the eternal origin of the HS is exclusively the Father.

Ah, I didn't know that. Thank you. I agree with you that most Protestants probably don't think it is a huge issue. The scriptures don't appear to be pristinely clear on the subject.

FK: "...is there something inherently superior to the Greek language itself?"

You ask a Greek a question like that? Ελλα, βραι παιδακι μου!

Religion Moderator alert: ABUSE!, ABUSE!, ABUSE! :)

But the fact is that the translations we have are all over the lot and those heterodox translations lead to very very different theologies.

Without minimizing that there are clear differences, I'm not sure it is the translation that really makes the theology. Anecdotally, the first Bible I ever read was an RSV, and IIRC that is an approved version for Latins. I don't remember coming to any Latin conclusions that would seriously contradict what I believe today. I think to a much larger degree it is the totality of the word, plus extra-scriptural works that form theologies on a practical level.

FK: "In Calvin's theology, the elect absolutely need access to God's word, be it in oral or written form. Otherwise, we would have to claim an irrational faith, and we do not."

Why would you have to claim an irrational faith if your access to "God's word" (I assume you don't mean Ο Λογος) is not limited to oral and written transmission?

I'm not sure if I meant "Ο Λογος". I'll have to think about that. :) Anyway, I didn't say that supplemental material to the word would require an irrational faith. I said that the EXCLUSION of the word would require an irrational faith. It wouldn't be based on anything authoritative.

Scripture isn't magic, FK.

But its truth is real power.

Orthodox believe that is [how] we all attain theosis; you folks believe that it is eternal salvation for the elect, eternal damnation for the rest, but in either event, the Bible tells us how to conduct ourselves. If Orthodoxy also teaches that through iconography, liturgical life, etc., does that make Orthodoxy "irrational"?

No. To the extent it is consistent with the Bible in what it represents it is fine and rational.

FK: "Reformers absolutely DO have a very coherent theology, and we have never claimed to speak for all Protestants."

Based on what? Individual interpretations and opinion of what's in the Bible? That makes them a religious party, not a church, akin to Pharisees or Sadducees.

Based on a common leading of the Holy Spirit. You can call us whatever names you want, but we are one Christian faith that disagrees with your Christian faith. Harley, I, and the other Reformers around here do not agree as much as we do because of luck.

We have no religious association with Mormons, FK. You are building a srawman.

I know. :) I was being sarcastic to show you what your side does to us all the time when you lump all Protestants together for the sole reason that we're not Apostolic.

FK: "I can describe God accurately through scripture as He intends to be known. In no way MUST I use allegorical language to do this."

That presupposes an accurate understanding and comprehension of the Bible. Wow, FK, pride does sneak in when you least expect it, doesn't it? Not even the Apostles claimed what you said, although our dear +Paul did say that "we have the mind of Christ." which the Protestants interpret in their own way.

All I said was "I can quote the Bible as well as the next guy!" LOL! I have no cause for pride. And, my current understanding and comprehension of the Bible is exactly where God wants it to be today. It is not something I have achieved, it is what has been given to me. God is so good that He is going to continue giving me more for the rest of my life. ...... "Our own way" of interpretation is on the basis of all other scripture. The scripture interprets itself.

FK: "While they may not have had the understanding of Christ that is available to us, they were still fully able to relate to God because God revealed Himself to them."

That means Christ's revelation is not the pinnacle of God's revelation to mankind. He was "eclipsed" by other's who didn't need Him to know God and make Him a liar for we can get to the Father only through Him! Wow, this explains a lot about the Protestant world and its privately concocted version of Christianity. Christ is not the apex of God's revelation! Unbelievable!

What? I made no comparisons. If you believe anything is real in the OT you have to admit that God revealed Himself in a very personal way to those He chose. Why do we have to compare that to the revelation of Christ as man-God? Of course Christ is the CENTER of the Christian faith. Nobody has said otherwise. Besides, I think there is a very credible case to be made that the OT revelations (appearances) of "God" were by Christ anyway. IOW, there is no need for a competition. The Incarnation is not threatened by the fact of God working on a personal level in the OT. It is a continuation of it.

The Calvinist are correct: Only someone forced to would love God.

You don't understand the situation that we are rescued from. If you did you would not make such a statement. We love because God first loved us. We understand our just punishment and the salvation that God has wrought in our lives. There is no "forced" love.

What is actually being denied is that God's will will be done. If it was that God willed that Joe would be saved, do you think that Joe would be saved? You'd have to say no because that would violate Joe's "free will". In essence you are simply denying the Lord's prayer's confession, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." According to your soteriology, every atheist who dies in their sin is evidence this confession is not true; God will is NOT done on earth. Calvinists believe God will IS done on earth as it is in heaven, just as God intends. If Joe goes to his grave as an atheist, it is according to God's will.

But, hey, you're "free" to believe what you want.

Here is a few more writings that you might want to read from Blessed Saint Irenaeus,since you want to try and use him to support a reformed point of view.

I'm not trying to use Irenaeus to support the reformed point of view. Anyone reading Irenaeus understands that he had far bigger fish to fry than setting forth a comprehensive systematic theology. This couldn't be done in the Church until Augustine came alone because of all the heresy springing up. (Which is why I normally go back to Augustine.)

I'm simply pointing out there is evidence of the monergistic beliefs of most the early western church fathers. Augustine consolidated their position.

As Augustine's stated; it all goes back to the scriptures, "What do you have that has not been given to you?"

“”As Augustine’s stated; it all goes back to the scriptures,””

Blessed Augustine relied on the Catholic Church.
Take a look...

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Against the Letter of Mani 5,6, 397 A.D.

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH.”
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

“I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves.”
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.

“What they found in the Church they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons.”
St. Augustine, Against Julian, 2,10,33, 421 A.D.

“Since by Christ’s favor we are CATHOLIC Christians:”
St. Augustine, Letter to Vitalis, 217,5,16, 427 A.D.

“By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

“This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her.”
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

Dear Brother, You’re hanging your yourself again by “guessing” on what the Early Church Fathers thought

Blessed Augustine would want you to become a Catholic and live a Sacramental Christian life

Dear Brother, You’re hanging your yourself again by “guessing” on what the Early Church Fathers thought Blessed Augustine would want you to become a Catholic and live a Sacramental Christian life

I don't have to guess. I'm well aware of what the early fathers wrote. The quotes you provided from Augustine are much early than his revelation in A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints.

"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so." Let us, then, look into the words of the apostle and see whether He chose us before the foundation of the world because we were going to be holy and immaculate, or in order that we might be so. "Blessed," says he, "be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; even as He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted." [Eph. 1.3.] Not, then, because we were to be so, but that we might be so.

I'd seriously doubt Augustine would have been Catholic today. I believe he would have felt more comfortable as an Orthodox Presbyterian.

I don't "hang" myself on the church fathers. To me they are uninspired writings from which we gather facts and data about how the church viewed things and how theology was constructed. To understand their writings completely, you have to have an understanding of what was happening in history at the time of their writings. These writings are tainted with events surrounding the fathers. I quoted Ireaneus simply to show that he at least held some view of God's sovereign will over man's life; there are others. The true theological position was always held within the Church but it wasn't until Augustine understood the issue and put it in his Treatise that it caused problems.

To the Catholic Church, the fathers writings are next to inspired writings. The Church feels the are capable of picking and choosing which of those writings are more inspirational than the others. You quoted Ireaneus as showing he believe in man's freedom of choice.

In some ways we have the same perspective on the fathers but simply coming from different angles. The only problem I see with the Catholic perspective is that they fail to recognize the historical context of the writings. Thus it has lead to corruption of the Catholic doctrine.

We could throw around quotes and theological comments from the fathers all day long but it won't mean anything. You yourself don't buy into Augustine's Predestination beliefs. So why is this one document wrong and the others right? (Especially when Agusutine states that his earlier works are in error?) When all is said and done, the only thing we have to support our views are the scriptures (GASP-Sola Scriptura)

I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said "that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own." And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?" [1 Cor. 4.7.] And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world.

I posted in response to your post:

:::I just don’t see Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. releasing position papers that claim the Roman Catholics or any other denomination for that matter don’t sufficiently have the REAL “truth” of Christianity.

Maybe they did recently, and I missed it.

That RCC claim of superiority just smacks of intolerance, pure and simple.

And if one can’t see that, they are blinding themselves to reality.

...

10,550 posted on 11/06/2007 6:02:43 PM CST by Rock&RollRepublican :::

The Catholic Church follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. It’s not that we have a superiority complex that is intolerant of others; it is just that we follow the holy teachings of our forebears, which go unbrokenly back to the Apostles, and Jesus. We consider that the various breakaway denominations are following men.

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 re-marry.

IF YOU ARE a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

IF YOU ARE a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

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 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 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, NY, in 1829.

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 one hundred years.

You may have been responding to some claims against Romney, but I was responding what you actually posted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.