C
Church_Militant
Guest
Don’t we need to stay on founding dates of Christian demoninations?
- Status
T
Teflon93
Guest
I never said you said you could. ** I agree with **you that Henry never considered himself to be anything but a good Catholic and a good King. For all I know, the man never in all his life repented of a thing he did. The tragedy of Henry is that a great prince became a bad man, the opposite course of Henry V.
But of course what Henry THOUGHT he was doing is pretty irrelevant to a discussion of what he did.
With regard to sacraments? The Church is hard-pressed to grant annulments when a woman refuses to assent to one. This showed up in modern times even with Joseph Kennedy, Jr. And again, I agree with you on the larger point that the Pope historically was balanced against the monarchs of the West until the Reformation.
The truth is simpler than the spin, as has ever been so in history. This was my point about Henry VIII above—he may claim all sorts of reasons for doing things depending on the audience, but what he actually did more than hints at his motives.
No one’s claiming that Anglicanism is equivalent ot Calvinism. Indeed, I side with Hillaire Belloc when he rightly claims that England was the “accidental” loss to Protestantism, and indeed the most tragic. Our Anglican brothers and sisters remain closest in union to us within the larger Protestant community and ought be treasured as such.
Where it fits into the present argument is that Anglicanism is a denomination of Protestantism, regardless of what Henry VIII thought, and because of his actions.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
We do. The other list that notes the dates of Christian denominations is not very accurate.
I am pretty sure from taking Religion 101. Catholic Church was founded in 32 AD. Eastern Orthodox Church was founded in 1054.
C
Contarini
Guest
Anglicanism is a Protestant (at least historically, and in part theologically) confession/communion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Strictly speaking, the Episcopal Church is a denomination, since it is jurisdictionally autonomous.
However, my point was and is that a denomination or a confession or a communion is not the same thing as a religion. The religion of Anglicans did not begin in the sixteenth century, because the religion of Anglicans is not Anglicanism but Christianity.
That is what is most fundamentally wrong with the list. It doesn’t do the work the author intends, because it falsely assumes that a specific branch of Protestantism is a “religion” of its own.
Edwin
T
Teflon93
Guest
The trouble is religion is a pretty flexible term.
Dictionary.com:
re·li·gion
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
So frame of reference does matter. Both Anglicans and Catholics are Christians, and it is more than name or geography which keeps us apart.
C
Contarini
Guest
Teflon,
The list is contrasting Protestant churches, which began at some date after the time of Christ (indeed, after 1500), with Catholicism, which began with Christ. The word “religion” must be understood in this context. From the perspective of most Protestants, the various Protestant traditions are more like Catholic religious orders than they are like the Catholic understanding of the Church. In other words, the contrast is a false one because Protestant churches do not claim to be what the Catholic Church claims to be.
As with the issue of the “number of denominations,” the more effective as well as more courteous approach is to ask Protestants how they themselves define it. Many Protestants haven’t thought about it at all (these are the ones who may be impressed by the list, but that doesn’t make the list a legitimate tool). Others will have various accounts of how their particular traditions are related to the first century. You have to start from what people actually believe, and not from a cheap scattershot approach such as this list.
Edwin
The list is contrasting Protestant churches, which began at some date after the time of Christ (indeed, after 1500), with Catholicism, which began with Christ. The word “religion” must be understood in this context. From the perspective of most Protestants, the various Protestant traditions are more like Catholic religious orders than they are like the Catholic understanding of the Church. In other words, the contrast is a false one because Protestant churches do not claim to be what the Catholic Church claims to be.
As with the issue of the “number of denominations,” the more effective as well as more courteous approach is to ask Protestants how they themselves define it. Many Protestants haven’t thought about it at all (these are the ones who may be impressed by the list, but that doesn’t make the list a legitimate tool). Others will have various accounts of how their particular traditions are related to the first century. You have to start from what people actually believe, and not from a cheap scattershot approach such as this list.
Edwin
T
Teflon93
Guest
What precisely is your objection to this? You certainly seem defensive given it simply reflects historical reality. If one believes, as many Protestants do, that an invisible church consists of small subsets of every branch of the Christian tree, how is that inconsistent with the Catholic Church being the branch going back to the root?
It is certainly inconvenient for anti-Catholic bigots who hold that we aren’t even part of the tree at all, but that’s a small minority and you’re not part of it.
And some Protestants do of course claim that their community is in fact identical to the primitive Church, whereas the Catholic Church has fallen away; a small minority well-represented in the “How do I know I’ve been born again?” threads.
Is the real issue simply that the historical claim to the Church Christ founded is strongest in the Catholic Church versus those which came later?
In other words, do you find this argument to be out of bounds simply because the Catholic Church “wins”?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Graph of an historical timeline of Church history, showing when the various schisms broke away from the Church.
saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
M
mtr01
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
That is a more fair and balance timeline I see. I see the timeline notes ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
M
mtr01
Guest
Except it makes the error of claiming the Catholic Church broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The one I posted below it is an accurate reflection of history.
T
Teflon93
Guest
On a related note, is every Orthodox Church in communion with every other? Has this been true throughout history?
I ask simply because I don’t know. I know a little sliver of Russian Orthodox history (thanks to 2 years of Russian), very little Greek Orthodox, and virtually know Eastern Orthodox.
I know, I know—I’m highly unorthodox.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
That is the one that I took noticed as well…
J
Jguerra
Guest
I am not certain it would be the equivalent: Boettner’s ‘inventions’ are outright lies. This list is not.
Joe
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
By showing the Orthodox Church as beginning in 1054 your graph contradicts the teachings of Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict. Both of them have stated that the Orthodox are as ancient as the Catholics and have the same apostolic faith.
Best not to deal with erroneous graphs which contradict the Pope.
J
Janet_S
Guest
I know this is off topic, but here’s the Boettner list and a refutation of it:
The Boettner List: fact or fiction?
foru.ms/t922262-the-boettner-list-fact-or-fiction.html
It sounds like Edwin’s objection to the list “Do you have any idea when your religion was founded and by whom?” was the use of the word “religion” since all these groups (or churches) are based on the Christian religion. Maybe we should replace the word “religion” with the word “church” since none of these movements were an attempt to start a new religion.
M
mtr01
Guest
Except the popes would not disagree that the Eastern Orthodox went into schism with the one true Church in 1054. So, the graph is not erroneous and in no way contradicts the pope (which your graph most certainly does).By showing the Orthodox Church as beginning in 1054 your graph contradicts the teachings of Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict. Both of them have stated that the Orthodox are as ancient as the Catholics and have the same apostolic faith.
Best not to deal with erroneous graphs which contradict the Pope.
C
Contarini
Guest
I have explained the several ways in which it does not. Suppose you engage with those arguments?
Well, the invisible church nonsense is neither here nor there.
Clearly the list is intended to “prove” to Protestants that their “religion” does not go back to Christ. That is not going to have any effect on a well-informed, thoughtful Protestant. Sure you can pick off ignorant people who have never thought about history–is that really what you want to do? (The fundamentalists do it, but Catholics should hold themselves to a higher standard.)
I repeat: the phrase "your religion began with. . . . " is simply slanderous. It does not reflect either the self-definition of Protestants or the current Catholic stance on Protestantism.
And how exactly will this list convince them otherwise?
Lists don’t prove anything. They simply make the people who draw them up feel smug, and they may confuse very naive and historically uneducated people (of whom there are many, largely because we live in a sound-bite culture that feeds on lists such as this one). They degrade the whole discourse.
The real issue is that this list doesn’t even start to address the reasons why this is the case.
No, I find it out of bounds because it shortcuts the real reasons why Protestants have to take the claims of Catholicism seriously.
Catholics have darn good arguments. It’s astounding to me how stubbornly many of you persist in using bad ones. This is the only ammunition the fundamentalists have–are you acting on the basis of some weird sense of fair play (like not pulling a gun on someone who has only a knife)?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, they are not (at least not all of them–not even a majority, I’d say). It’s not an exact equivalent–Boettner’s list is worse. But many (not all) of Boettner’s dates do have something to do with the doctrine or practice he is describing. Even in those cases, by short-circuiting the complex process of development of which these dates are part and by using the word “invent,” he conveys a fundamentally fraudulent impression.
Edwin
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Ya know. . .I think I actually agree here.
One can easily argue the case for Catholicism based on history. There is no doubt in my mind about that. However, lists such as these seem to do more harm than good in cross Tiber exchanges–at least I haven’t been privy to a successful list-showing conversion. To me they smack of the endless genealogies St. Paul talks about in his first letter to Timothy.
Of course, they are great fodder for discussion (such as this one), but if they run the risk of proliferating division rather than the work of God. Surely, we can do much better!
Anyone really interested in the historicity of the Catholic Church will be pleased to find a bounty of credible and accurate information which will help the Catholic apologist far more than a list will. Most people who argue against the claims of the Catholic Church aren’t really going to be impressed with a graphic, by my estimation. The challenge needs to be based on evidence and forcing a burden of proof.
- Status