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]

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.

Firstly -- no, ROME is not supreme among the Catholic Churchs -- it is the first among equals, but the other Patriarchs are of equal dignity, whethere they be Maronite Catholic or Syro-Malabar etc.

Secondly, the Orthodox have always upheld the Patriarch of the West's role as first among equals -- note: not primacy but first among equals

Thirdly, the Western Church IS the Latin Catholic Church (one of the Catholic Churchs). There were/are no other Western Churches.

the Anglicans, Lutherans etc. consider themselves part of the Western Church and we both know the persecution-count on both sides of that is about even

Before the 1500s there were heresies like the Cathars who believed in a dualistic nature of an equal Evil and Good Spirit and in a demiurge. They were not a Church but a Gnostic cult.

[Cronos]

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

Quite right -- remember that the Western Church has, in my opinion, put to rest many of the non-dogmatic issues (primarily history) that caused tensions. Things like apologising for 1204, returning relics of St. Mark to the Copts etc. are roadmarks to eventual talks about the things that really matter.

The two lungs have also talked about Rome's place in the Ravenna concord and the Orthodox affirmed that they see Rome as the first among equals, BUT, since the two are not in full communion, that seat remains empty to the Orthodox and the EP holds the role of first among equals in the Western Patriarch's stead.

Good points discussed and removing some of the non-dogmatic irritants. That's why, Yudan, I don't like an Eastern Orthodox person saying, as I perceived you said "Oho, what about 1204. You guys did that 800 years ago, so no talks. We won't even talk about the real issues because of 1204". That's been put to rest by the Patriachs themselves.

Now to the REAL issues like the filioque (which I agree that we should remove prior to discussing it in an ecumenical council as it is a change to something that was agreed in council) and other dogmatic issues.

The next step should be a council of Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian and Catholics where we thrash out the REAL issues and forget historical slights (come on, each side will say "in 523, the Bishop of Rome wasn't accorded respect by the Bishop of COnstantinople" or vice-versa (I made up that thing and the date :-P) -- silly, but human.

And, at the risk of repeating myself -- historical slights do not include anything vaguely dogmatic, those dogmatic issues should be discussed in council

[Cronos]

I AM just tweaking you talking about only 5 Patriarchs -- I'm sure the Patriach/Metropolitan (pardon my lack of knowledge of the right title) of Russia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria etc. might have some issue with that. :)

But what I really mean is, let's forget historical slights and focus on core dogmatic issues as I said in my post above

[Blogger]

The Cathars may or may not have believed as stated. Their belief is irrelevant to the subject. The subject is should the Catholic church have taken it upon itself to kill and persecute people who didn’t believe the way they did. The answer, Biblically, is NO.

[Cronos]

There are any of a number of reasons why it is said that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops

Ok, now we're going to debate about which of us has more skulls :)))

[Cronos]

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

The Crusades were an act of Christendom as a whole. Even today we all: Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians need to stand together against theIslamic heresy that is killingChristians from Iraq to Egypt to Afghanistan to Yemen to Indonesia to the Philippines to Pakistan.

[Cronos]

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.

excellently put Kosta. Puget -- THIS is why we disagree so much with sola scriptura. God is difficult to comprehend as an individual, only as a community of believers stretching back 2000 years can we even begin to start to comprehend. As an individual we have no chance, no matter if we try, no matter if we get caught up by The Holy Spirit, because the immensity of God is too much for our tiny minds to comprehend. It's like an ant trying to understand Calculus. In fact the ant is more likely to understand calculus than we as individuals are to comprehend God.

That and only that is the reason why we keep insisting on Apostolic succession, on learning as a Church through millenia.

If you read the early Church fathers like Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, you'll see that they all made mistakes in their understanding. THey didn't have the wealth of knowledge we now have millenia later. Time and mass....

[Cronos]

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.

how can you say that -- the Gospel of Mark says he was adopted (or so the Adoptionists say).

[Cronos]

Theoretically, even Gnostics fulfil Puget's criteria to be labelled Christian.

Gnostics say that originally there was a Higher God who separated to form sub-gods and goddesses (including Sophia or the Holy SPirit), then Sophia created a sub-god called Yebbolaoth (or Yhwh).

At this time there was no thing like "matter" -- everything was spirit and so, pure.

But Y didn't know about the other, "higher" Gods, so he thought he was the only god and created matter.

Y was a jealous god and prevented his creations from worshipping the higher gods (hence all the talk in the OT about him being jealous and telling his people to kill other folks).

SOphia didn't like this so sent another one of her creations (or her spouse -- Gnostics differ in teachings), Jesus to the world to show people that they had to escape evil matter.

Jesus was "pretend" crucified but he actually laughed and escaped the false, evil creation of matter.

Now everyone has the chance to escape this false creation of matter and become one with the Spirit


Where did they get all of this? From the Bible

There is a distinct change in the personality of God -- at least to human, individual reading. And that's whey they made up this error.

That's what sola scriptura can lead to

[Cronos]

Christianity is a branch of pre-Rabbinical Judaism because we do not negate anything of the OT, of pre-R Judaism, rather we say we fulfill it. Rabbinical Judaism (or modern day Judaism) is a sister religion and is not the parent religion.

Protestantism claims to be replacing The Church, hence cannot be compared to a graft in any way (unless you mean that Protestant teachings come from outside Christianity, which in the case of Mormons it DOES), but a branch that has some parts that see itself as part of the tree (Lutherans, Anglicans..) and others that want to break away completely, not realising that without the tree they will wither and die.

And you may ask "what withering, we're doing fine", to which I say that the centuries will tell. We've been through 2000 years and seen Montanists etc. wither and die away. Cults come and go, The Church of Christ remains...

[Cronos]

The subject is should the Catholic church have taken it upon itself to kill and persecute people who didn’t believe the way they did. The answer, Biblically, is NO.

Be careful playing around with their ideas as it is my opinion that the screed you cited leaves out the details of what they mean by suicide, euthanasia, etc. you should be aware of the connections between the Church and the State at that time in History, you would understand that they were not only considered heretics, but also guilty of treason to the state which was ruled by a king. It was not only the king who would hold this to be true, but also their fellow countrymen who were loyal to Church and Crown

Cathars were very deceptive, and habitually advanced into new areas and protected themselves in old by a form of mafia-like terror, assasinating anyone who they saw as a threat.

the crusade was called only after the murder of the papal emissary by the Cathars. Amaury was not a military commander, and the reported command "Kill them all", is legend rather than historically attributed. It does not appear in the contemporary accounts

A civil war developed. Many southern Catholic nobility sided with the Cathars because the Papal side were largely northern French under the King. Estimates for deaths are massively over-exaggerated.

Catharism was suppressed (just as Catholicism was suppressed after the reformation in countries like Norway and Scotland.) However such a process is not "extermination", and certainly not "Genocide" - the elimination of a racial group

[Cronos]

The Cathars may or may not have believed as stated. Their belief is irrelevant to the subject.

And no, the beliefs are NOT irrelevant to the subject. Cathars preached Gnostic-dualism, a hatred of life and a love of death (as a means of escaping the evil world).

Those beliefs preached to the common, illiterate man resulted in sheep being led astray. The duty of the sherpherd is to watch over his flock. If the Patriarch had NOT stopped this, he would not have been doing his duty.

And no, that does not translate into actions to do today because it is a different time and people are free to find out more for themselves on the net, in books etc. You can't compare those times to these. You can compare those times to the life of a secret Christian in Afghanistan or in Paktoon lands -- a closure of information about Christ and a separation from the Church.

[Blogger]

So, the Christian message is ‘if you disagree with them, throw them in jail or kill them?’

To the contrary.

Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Romans 12:14
Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

1 Peter 2:20
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God

Folks were persecuted for printing Scripture in the common tongue for goodness sake!!!! Mustn’t have people read the Bible.

Now as to the church state relationship, you have that exactly right - which is why your argument holds no water when you say “that was the state persecuting them not the church.” They were essentially the same and one did not operate without the others approval. Typically, kings ultimately bowed to the Popes but not always.

[Cronos]

So, the Christian message is ‘if you disagree with them, throw them in jail or kill them?’

Nope. The Christian message is to preach to them. However, when the preaching is stopped by political forces then political forces (read kings, dukes, emperors) fought those other political forces.

Did you read about "you would understand that they were not only considered heretics, but also guilty of treason to the state which was ruled by a king. It was not only the king who would hold this to be true, but also their fellow countrymen who were loyal to Church and Crown"?

[dixiechick2000]

"The problem is that statement is too simplistic. Even the Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons and even Muslims say they believe in the Bible (parts of it) and Christ's teachings..."

That statement isn't simplistic...just a statement of fact.

The very fact that you can equate the religions mentioned in your post with Southern Baptists is an insult.

They may claim to believe in the Bible, and Christ's teachings ("parts of it"), but those claims are a ruse.

What religion and denonination are you?

[Cronos]

The Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses etc. say they believe in the bible. You say they’re not telling the truth?

[dixiechick2000]

“The Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses etc. say they believe in the bible.”

They can believe in the Bible...I’m not faulting for that.

However, there is more to being a Christian than believing in the Bible.

For one thing, the word “Bible” needs to be capitalized before I would believe one is faithful to it.

Some would say that is being picky.

I believe it’s being reverent.

Too, one has to believe in the Trinity...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Most of all, one has to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who was sent to Earth to save us from our sins.

I don’t think the religions you mentioned believe one iota of that.

[Cronos]

Too, one has to believe in the Trinity...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Most of all, one has to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who was sent to Earth to save us from our sins. I don’t think the religions you mentioned believe one iota of that.

Mormons DO believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

[Cronos]

Too, one has to believe in the Trinity...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And many other groups who go by Bible alone say that Jesus was adopted and not the Son of God, but just a man (Muslims) or an adopted God (Adoptionists). That's what they sola scriptura read in The Bible and interpret on their own.

[dixiechick2000]

I’m not going to get into a doctrinal debate with you.

You cherry picked my post.

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent here to die for our sins.

THAT is the difference.