Founding dates of Christian demoninations

[Teflon93]

I do think Protestant is a denomination because there are many with different doctrines and beliefs… I believe there are 33,000 of them. Anglicanism is one of them.

It gets dicey because the Protestant umbrella covers many, many doctrinally exclusive beliefs. Indeed, what Protestants agree upon, as we have seen in a thread on the very subject, is the Nicene Creed, which we of course agree upon too.

Beyond several broad groupings of varying degrees of doctrinal unity, you won’t find a Protestant community per se. Protestant is today largely a way of saying “Non-Catholic, Non-Orthodox Christian”, although the growth of nondenominational megachurches may yet lead “Nondenominational” to replace “Protestant” for all intents and purposes except for the historical.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is illogical. Protestantism is a denomination because it contains 33,000 denominations? That’s like saying that the Earth is a nation because it contains several hundred nations.

By the 33,000 figure, I am sure that Anglicanism is not one single denomination. That kind of number is arrived at only when you count every single national body as a separate “denomination.”

Edwin

Anglicanism is only One of the Protestant denomination.

 

[Verita]

Since St. Thomas More was martyred long before the concept of the “denomination” was invented, no he didn’t find out.

Edwin

To “Denominate” something is simply to name it or designate it. The question then, in whether something is considered a “denomination” is then “Did this organization designate its self as something other than that which was there before?” Also “When did this organization name its self as something different?” If the Anglican church did this to separate its self from the Catholic church, then it is a denomination.

However, as I said, Denominating is merely “naming”. A cat was a cat long before the word “cat” was invented. Names are merely used so that we may recognize something and that this recognition may be standardized. Gravity existed long before any Scientist understood it. Therefore, even if the Anglican church did not “Denominate” its self, it was still a separate entity from the Catholic Church because it no longer followed the same authority.

 

[Teflon93]

First of all, it is true that strictly speaking Anglicanism is not a denomination. The Episcopal Church is a denomination. Neither the Episcopal Church nor Anglicanism is a religion of its own, which is what I was saying. I believe I have mentioned previously that conversation can be carried on much more conveniently when we quote each other accurately.

And I’m beginning to believe your dictionary has an errata in defining “quotation”, since you maintain that I quote you when I rarely do so. The box above is a quotation. Care to argue its accuracy?

Since St. Thomas More was martyred long before the concept of the “denomination” was invented, no he didn’t find out. If you mean that his death proved that Anglicanism was a separate religion, no I don’t think it did that either. For one thing, he was after all executed as a traitor (i.e., because he went against the will of the monarch–and he was of course quite right to do so). I’m not sure that an execution for heresy really means that the persecutor and persecuted belong to two different religions, but at that point we are perhaps getting into semantics (it may be true that Protestants and Catholics of the sixteenth century thought we were part of two different religions, though Richard Hooker essentially denied this in the Elizabethan era, and got into trouble with the Puritans for doing so). However, since St. Thomas was not executed for heresy, that really is irrelevant. Henry VIII did not think he was starting a new religion–that much is pretty clear.

Edwin

It doesn’t matter what Henry VIII thought he was doing, nor what he claimed to think he was doing. What he did was to pull England out of the Catholic world. Murdering Thomas More for faithfully fulfilling his obligation to the Church was but one of his many crimes; indeed, but one of his many murders.

And since you equate correcting you with misquoting you, Edwin, isn’t it time for another spurious claim of the latter?

 

[Volodymyr]

5 Patriheads.

The bishops of Rome and Antioch is Peter, Jerusalem James, Constantinople Andrew, and Alexandria is Mark.

You can even check the list of Popes.

The Church in Rome had its liturgy in Greek but change it to Latin around the 4th Century not the 11th Century as you presumed.

The Orthodox Church came out of 1054 AD. There was no Orthodox Church back then. The earliest record we had describing an Eastern Orthodox Church was none existence. We do have documents like St. Ignatius of Antioch describing the Church as Catholic.

Dear Friend: I understand that Roman Catolics are very proud of their list of Bishops of Rome. But Church of Rome is much different from Imperial Roman Papal Latin Church which emerged in 11th century. Of course St. Peter founded Church of Rome - but he did not found what you now call the Roman Catolic Church.

I am pleased but mystified that you concede that St. Andrei was bishop of Byzantium (for which there is very little evidence).

The Pentarchy is how in English would call the five major patriarchs who govern the Church - one of whom the Bishop of Rome has separated himself from his brothers.

Orthodox has always been the name of the Faith of Catholic Church. St. John Damaskene who writes exposition on orthodox faith (which Catolics have called Catolic Faith - but this is erroneous translation of Greek). Now our Holy Orthodox Catholic church continuous line with St. Peter in Antioch, St. Mark in Alexandria, St. James in Jerusalem.

It all depends upon whom you think separated from whom - it is not a matter of incorrect facts. It is a matter of point of view. From mine - Rome left us - from yours, the opposite.

 

[Teflon93]

Dear Friend: I understand that Roman Catolics are very proud of their list of Bishops of Rome. But Church of Rome is much different from Imperial Roman Papal Latin Church which emerged in 11th century. Of course St. Peter founded Church of Rome - but he did not found what you now call the Roman Catolic Church.

I am pleased but mystified that you concede that St. Andrei was bishop of Byzantium (for which there is very little evidence).

The Pentarchy is how in English would call the five major patriarchs who govern the Church - one of whom the Bishop of Rome has separated himself from his brothers.

Orthodox has always been the name of the Faith of Catholic Church. St. John Damaskene who writes exposition on orthodox faith (which Catolics have called Catolic Faith - but this is erroneous translation of Greek). Now our Holy Orthodox Catholic church continuous line with St. Peter in Antioch, St. Mark in Alexandria, St. James in Jerusalem.

It all depends upon whom you think separated from whom - it is not a matter of incorrect facts. It is a matter of point of view. From mine - Rome left us - from yours, the opposite.

We call ourselves Catholics, which of course is what we see in the ECFs.

Given Rome’s primacy, it is surely not irrelevant that your patriarchs chose to leave behind the jewel of Christendom for the Byzantines. It is surely a miracle that the Orthodox survived the fall of Constantinople, amid the other calamities which have befallen the East in the intervening centuries.

So yes, point of view matters, and hopefully our points of view will converge sooner rather than later and the Body of Christ once more be united.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Peter never left anybody.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Dear Friend: I understand that Roman Catolics are very proud of their list of Bishops of Rome. But Church of Rome is much different from Imperial Roman Papal Latin Church which emerged in 11th century. Of course St. Peter founded Church of Rome - but he did not found what you now call the Roman Catolic Church.

I am pleased but mystified that you concede that St. Andrei was bishop of Byzantium (for which there is very little evidence).

The Pentarchy is how in English would call the five major patriarchs who govern the Church - one of whom the Bishop of Rome has separated himself from his brothers.

Orthodox has always been the name of the Faith of Catholic Church. St. John Damaskene who writes exposition on orthodox faith (which Catolics have called Catolic Faith - but this is erroneous translation of Greek). Now our Holy Orthodox Catholic church continuous line with St. Peter in Antioch, St. Mark in Alexandria, St. James in Jerusalem.

It all depends upon whom you think separated from whom - it is not a matter of incorrect facts. It is a matter of point of view. From mine - Rome left us - from yours, the opposite.

From your prespective Rome left the 5 Patricheads. In our view the the Eastern Orthodox left us.

I’m pretty sure St. Andrew is the Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[jmcrae]

Dear Friend: I understand that Roman Catolics are very proud of their list of Bishops of Rome. But Church of Rome is much different from Imperial Roman Papal Latin Church which emerged in 11th century. Of course St. Peter founded Church of Rome - but he did not found what you now call the Roman Catolic Church.

No, that’s true. Jesus did that; not Peter.

Jesus set Peter up as the first Bishop of Bishops (see John 21:15-19).

St. Ignatius of Antioch reminds us that in order to be considered Christians, we need to be in full communion with the Bishop; we cannot be schismatics.

It stands to reason that the Bishops need to be in full communion with each other, as well (otherwise, what would be the point of our being in full communion with him?) - and whoever is not in full communion with the Bishop of Bishops, Peter’s successor in Rome, is in schism from the Church that Christ founded.

Here I go stating the obvious, but it’s important to realize that schism is the opposite of unity.

 

[Janet_S]

However, since St. Thomas was not executed for heresy, that really is irrelevant.

Edwin

You point out Thomas More was executed for treason, not for heresy. I’ve noticed you make this distinction on other posts as well. But weren’t charges of treason and heresy in those times the same?

And, it really was more about religion than treachery. I doubt the Queen considered these people as serious spies and traitors. Any one of the English Catholic martyrs could have spared his or her life by renouncing the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

You point out Thomas More was executed for treason, not for heresy. I’ve noticed you make this distinction on other posts as well. But weren’t charges of treason and heresy in those times the same?

And, it really was more about religion than treachery. I doubt the Queen considered these people as serious spies and traitors. Any one of the English Catholic martyrs could have spared his or her life by renouncing the Roman Catholic Church.

Absolutely, since the “treason” of which they were found guilty was loyalty to the Pope as their spiritual leader - instead of the King, whom they considered to be merely a secular government leader. Their crime was that they denied the King’s right to appoint his own Bishops in place of those appointed by the Pope.

 

[John89]

check this out, maybe it will help

adherents.com/adh_dates.html

god bless

 

[Janet_S]

Without further discussion of what these dates mean and what members of each denomination think the Church is, such a list is meaningless and even dishonest. It will not help form anyone’s faith. It will only make Catholics smug and everyone else annoyed.

It’s the Catholic equivalent of Boettner’s infamous list of “Catholic inventions.”

Edwin

I agree that showing this list is not a good evangelization tool, but I don’t see how it’s dishonest. If we had a time machine and went back 200 years, we would not find any Mormons, JW’s, SDA’s, or fundamentalist rapturites.

If we went back 500 years, we would not find any Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Baptists.

Each of these groups started sometime after the Reformation and can be traced to a founder.

 

[Church_Militant]

check this out, maybe it will help

adherents.com/adh_dates.html

god blessThis actually looks pretty good.
Frankly I’d like to see some of the various sects comment on this, since it’s history, right?

I don’t know if there’s an honesty issue, or not, but I do know it has only a very limited use in faith sharing, though it is worthwhile for Catholics to be aware of this.

 

[bobzills]

This actually looks pretty good.

Well, I think I saw somewhere the following:
Founding date of the Orthodox Church: 32 AD.
Founding date of the Roman Catholic Church (which split from the Orthodox Church): 1054 AD.

 

[Contarini]

You point out Thomas More was executed for treason, not for heresy. I’ve noticed you make this distinction on other posts as well. But weren’t charges of treason and heresy in those times the same?

No, they certainly were not. This is a misconception I have seen frequently on this board. Where are you getting that notion? The only way to understand why people in the sixteenth century persecuted is to make the same distinctions they made instead of saying “It doesn’t matter because they were all killing people for religion.”

And, it really was more about religion than treachery.

It’s not an either/or. More’s religious beliefs required him to reject the Royal Supremacy, and this made him a traitor in the king’s eyes.

I doubt the Queen considered these people as serious spies and traitors. Any one of the English Catholic martyrs could have spared his or her life by renouncing the Roman Catholic Church.

We were talking about More, not about the Elizabethan martyrs. But in both cases politics and religion are inextricably linked. That does not mean that treason, heresy, blasphemy, and sedition were all the same thing (people acting on religious motives and doing things that would not be considered criminal in our society were executed under all four charges at various points in the sixteenth century).

My point here was simply that Henry didn’t think he was setting up a new religion–he thought he was throwing off a tyrannical claim of authority and asserting the ancient privileges of England as an “empire” (at least that’s what he claimed–whether he sincerely believed it or not is something we probably can’t judge).

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

My point here was simply that Henry didn’t think he was setting up a new religion–he thought he was throwing off a tyrannical claim of authority and asserting the ancient privileges of England as an “empire” (at least that’s what he claimed–whether he sincerely believed it or not is something we probably can’t judge).

Edwin

You can’t divorce Henry’s political claims from his religious ones vis-a-vis his desire for a divorce.

Had the Catholic Church granted him an annulment in his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, I have little doubt he would have remained a Catholic (and littler doubt the Catholic Church would have ceased to be Catholic once it bent to such demands). The bishop controversy was a means to an end, the end being Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn and produce a male heir.

Now, even had the Church given in that time, history being as it was, would they have given in EVERY time Henry decided he wanted a do-over?

Probably not.

Henry’s insecurity and lust did play a large role in this. And regardless of how Henry justified himself, the Catholic Church reserves the right to determine who is and is not in communion with her.

Let’s not lose the clear line here.

One need only dig into WHY More was found guilty of treason to shed light on the matter.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, I think I saw somewhere the following:
Founding date of the Orthodox Church: 32 AD.
Founding date of the Roman Catholic Church (which split from the Orthodox Church): 1054 AD.

Not on the list that I quoted…and inaccurate in any case.

 

[Contarini]

You can’t divorce Henry’s political claims from his religious ones vis-a-vis his desire for a divorce.

I never said you could. My point is that while you can argue that someone like Calvin saw Catholicism as in a sense a “different religion,” Henry clearly didn’t. That’s all I’m saying. Don’t read too much into it.

Had the Catholic Church granted him an annulment in his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, I have little doubt he would have remained a Catholic (and littler doubt the Catholic Church would have ceased to be Catholic once it bent to such demands).

You should have a bit more doubt. By that standard the Catholic Church has frequently ceased to be Catholic, since Popes have often given monarchs extra breaks to keep them on the side of the Church. That being said, Popes have also stood up to monarchs at times when no one else would, and that’s what counts.

Let’s not lose the clear line here.

Let’s lose anything that makes the truth seem simpler than it really is.

One need only dig into WHY More was found guilty of treason to shed light on the matter.

What light does it shed on the matter in hand, namely whether Anglicanism is its own “religion”? My point is simply that Henry’s Church certainly did not regard Catholicism as apostate. Some later Anglicans did, but this was never an official position. Read the 39 Articles–they speak explicitly of the Church of Rome having erred just as other particular churches have, with the implication that this is something particular churches within the Catholic Church do. This in contrast to the Westminster Confession or the Lutheran confessional statements, which officially declare the Pope to be the Antichrist. Lutherans and Reformed would also deny that their religion started in the 16th century, of course, but when you have that kind of official language the issues are rather different. For Anglicans the case is clearer–Anglicanism as a whole never made claims that could justify such an accusation.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I agree that showing this list is not a good evangelization tool, but I don’t see how it’s dishonest. If we had a time machine and went back 200 years, we would not find any Mormons, JW’s, SDA’s, or fundamentalist rapturites.

If we went back 500 years, we would not find any Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, or Baptists.

We wouldn’t find a dogma of ex cathedra papal infallibility either.

Dates without context are intrinsically dishonest. Not to speak of the reckless use of the word “religion.”

Edwin