Founding dates of Christian demoninations

[NotWorthy]

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

Yes, and by conveying a fundamentally fraudulent impression, Boettner makes himself worse than a liar. By including just the hint of truth in his accusations, he lends a false validity to his statements. The average person who believes these “fundamentally fraudulent impressions” does not take the time to validate these claims, especially if the person is already biased against the Church.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, and by conveying a fundamentally fraudulent impression, Boettner makes himself worse than a liar. By including just the hint of truth in his accusations, he lends a false validity to his statements. The average person who believes these “fundamentally fraudulent impressions” does not take the time to validate these claims, especially if the person is already biased against the Church.

I agree (well, with the exception of the “worse than a liar” bit). And while the list of dates in question here is not as bad, it does the same thing. Sure, these dates all have something to do with the beginning of the various religious groups mentioned. But they do not tell you what you need to know, which is how each of these groups defines itself and how it relates to the universal Church–it doesn’t even tell you what the significance of that particular date is for that particular group (“founding” can mean a lot of things).

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

I have explained the several ways in which it does not. Suppose you engage with those arguments?

I haven’t seen any arguments; just emotional rhetoric.

Well, the invisible church nonsense is neither here nor there.

You claimed such diagrams/lists offend Protestants. I simply posited it shouldn’t offend those who hew to the invisible church concept, as the Elect are chosen from all branches of the Christian tree in that view. It is directly relevant.

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.)

Well, thanks for the lecture (again). Such a list is intended to demonstrate that the Church Christ founded abides to this day. Protestants only reach back to Christ through her. This is simply an historical fact. If it causes some to ask questions regarding where precisely the Reformers gained authority of God to split Christendom, so be it.

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.

Is this what you consider to be an argument?

I have quoted you the definition of religion. It does not square with your restrive view. It is perfectly reasonable to refer to Catholic and Protestant religions. There is no anti-ecumenical slant to it. The fact that Protestants only trace their relationship to the Church Christ founded through the Catholic Church they split from during the Reformation does not mean Protestants are not Christians. No one has maintained they are not that I can see; the Church specifically teaches they are. Again, you seem to be making an emotional appeal to simply shut down discussion of the historical claim the Catholic Church makes to be the Church of Christ.

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.

How are you elevating it with your emotional rhetoric? You are not the first historian who wished to keep people from studying history. Are your beliefs so fragile they must be hermetically sealed off from history? Or are you so smug you condescendingly believe the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church will lead those poor, historically-ignorant Protestants astray?

As noted, I think it’s likelier it will simply lead some Protestants to a greater respect for the Catholic Church and perhaps to stop treating it as an alien cult. Wouldn’t that be nice?

The real issue is that this list doesn’t even start to address the reasons why this is the case.

Well, that sounds like a lead in to a real argument. Please proceed with these reasons.

 

[Teflon93]

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

Nope, but I find it interesting that you are so sensitive to the historical argument. Had I to guess, I would say it is because the gap between Anglican and Catholic is largely historical. In other words, there’s really not much theological distance between us. Once you start being troubled by Henry VIII as founder of your denomination, you can’t help but think…

At least I did.

Catholics of course defend the Church against all sorts of claims. Fundamentalists are a small and frankly dying subset of these. The growing portion of non-Catholic Christianity is actually nondenominational, and appealed to not chiefly by theology (they don’t know any) but through history, charity, and culture.

Not to mention the fact that fundamentalists have already found the historical argument so compelling as the need to develop an alternate, “secret” history a la “Baptism of Blood” to undergird their authority.

And furthermore, the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church IS a bit of an advantage, isn’t it? Every Christian who has broken from her has had to justify the break somehow as a result, never really convincingly. Hopefully, these breaks will continue to be healed and we all will be one again. For some, this will be because they follow history. For others, theology. For others, culture. For others, charity. Many roads to Rome, and choosing one doesn’t mean the others are bad or wrong.

 

[Teflon93]

I agree (well, with the exception of the “worse than a liar” bit). And while the list of dates in question here is not as bad, it does the same thing. Sure, these dates all have something to do with the beginning of the various religious groups mentioned. But they do not tell you what you need to know, which is how each of these groups defines itself and how it relates to the universal Church–it doesn’t even tell you what the significance of that particular date is for that particular group (“founding” can mean a lot of things).

Edwin

There’s only so much you can show in a diagram. And yet it still conveys the important message that late in Church history, (1000 years late), major chunks of Christendom began to pull away from the Church founded by Christ, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

Now, a diagram or list is truly agnostic on whether these groups were pulled or pushed away. Reasonable people can and do differ.

But it does compel one to examine the reasons more closely.

For example, I would say that you simply cannot understand Arianism unless you understand the role of the Army in the Roman Empire. It simply won’t make any sense until you do.

Likewise, you cannot understand your Protestant faith without understanding the Catholic faith and why yours is different. There are big gaps (1,500 years’ worth) in your history and theology until you do. You don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church, but you do need to understand her claims.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Contarini, can you respond to this?

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.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, can you respond to this?

It ignores the way “denomination” is historically used. Etymology is not argument. A “denomination” is historically a particular church organization comprising a number of local churches under some kind of common umbrella, and most strictly it refers to a group that does not claim to be the whole Church. Anglicanism is not technically speaking a “denomination” because it contains a number of autonomous “denominations” with no centralized structure.

The point is really not important. What is important is the question of identity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You claimed such diagrams/lists offend Protestants.

No, I never used the word “offend.” The list is objectively worthless because it doesn’t address ecclesiological issues. It has no theological content at all. A list of dates isn’t even good history, and even good history can’t do the work of theology.

Obviously such a cheap shot will offend a lot of people, but that’s not why it’s bad. It’s bad because it’s not a good argument. It would be bad even if it converted every Protestant on the planet.

I simply posited it shouldn’t offend those who hew to the invisible church concept, as the Elect are chosen from all branches of the Christian tree in that view. It is directly relevant.

But obviously it isn’t relevant to those who hold the invisible Church view. It bounces right off their armor. They simply don’t care. Those who do care have some account of their identity that goes back beyond the formation of their particular group. And that’s what you have to deal with. The list is worthless because it doesn’t do that.

This is simply an historical fact.

No, it’s not a historical fact. It’s a theological claim. That’s the problem with so much bad apologetics–it tries to make history (not even good, nuanced history) do the work of theology. What is a fact (i.e., verifiable by anyone without reference to theological presuppositions) is that at some point in the first century certain Greek-speaking Jews began proclaiming a crucified Galilean rabbi to be the Messiah and the Son of God. From this early movement all forms of Christianity developed. It is certainly true that Catholicism and the various Eastern churches developed in a more continuous way than the Protestant groups, in the sense that Protestants explicitly rejected some of the things previous Christians had believed, broke with authority structures they had previously recognized, and in some cases (French Huguenots, for instance, or Anabaptists) were not even able to gain control of the regional institutions of the pre-Reformation Church. That’s as far as you can go without bringing theology into it. Why you wouldn’t want to bring theology into it is beyond me.

I have quoted you the definition of religion.

Now that really isn’t an argument. Dictionary definitions are not arguments. They’re just broad, common usages. They say nothing about the particular issues at stake here.

It is perfectly reasonable to refer to Catholic and Protestant religions.

No, it’s not. I’ll let you argue that point with other Catholics from the Catholic side, but it certainly doesn’t reflect the Anglican understanding or that of other non-fundamentalist Protestants. We are one religion because we all believe in Jesus Christ. This is an essential part of what most of us (i.e., moderate Protestants) believe. Therefore, any argument beginning “your religion started in year X” is going to be worthless against us, just as you and other thoughtful Catholics lose all respect for any Protestant who starts an argument with “Catholicism began with Emperor Constantine.”

There is no anti-ecumenical slant to it.

That’s complete rubbish. Are you seriously saying that you use this term out of blind faith in whatever dictionary you have culled it from? Webster said it, I believe it, that settles it? That you have no particular investment in the term except a commitment to what you believe (in a foolish sort of etymological fundamentalism) to be strict accuracy? The term is so broad that it can’t possibly justify that attitude. I agree that we can mean a lot of things by a “religion.” But I do not think that the way the word is used in normal usage is compatible with the statement that Protestants are “separated brethren” of Catholics. Members of a different religion are not brothers and sisters except in the sense that all human beings are brothers and sisters.

The fact that Protestants only trace their relationship to the Church Christ founded through the Catholic Church they split from during the Reformation does not mean Protestants are not Christians.

But since Christianity is usually understood to be the name of a religion, it makes no sense to say that Protestants are Christians and yet that they belong to a different religion.

Again, you seem to be making an emotional appeal

It’s not an emotional appeal. The religion we belong to is Christianity. Period. It is not Protestantism. It is not Anglicanism. It is not anything but Christianity. All the more specific terms denote variants within this one religion. This is a matter of absolute importance to us. It is key to our identity. Any argument Catholics make has to be predicated on this common adherence to Christianity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Partial retraction:

Given how historically ignorant many Protestants are, I can see how a list like this one might be the lead-in to a real discussion. For instance, many Baptists have no idea that they are historically a branch of English Separatism. Talking about John Smyth and his weird “se-baptism” can certainly be a helpful way of making them be historically honest.

It doesn’t seem to me that this list is very useful in that direction, but perhaps I want to start the discussion on an overly advanced level compared to where a lot of people are. Perhaps for some Protestants the idea that their particular version of Christianity began at a particular time really is new. I can’t think of any point in my life at which this would have been new to me. What was new to me was the realization of just how different the Reformers’ version of Protestantism was from mine, and just how decisive the American Revolution had been in shaping the broad traditions of Protestantism from which my own derived. (Also how bankrupt attempts to see proto-Protestantism in the Middle Ages really are!) But I knew quite well that my family’s faith was shaped by a small holiness denomination founded by my great-great-uncle at the turn of the 20th century, deriving from Methodism founded in the 18th century, and so on. So a list of dates wouldn’t have done anything for me. Perhaps I am too quick to forget not only that most Protestants are not specialists in church history, but that most Protestants did not grow up in a family dedicated to publishing devotional literature dealing with Christian history (which is how I became interested in the subject).

Sorry if this makes me sound like a snob, but most of you think I am one anyway!

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

I think that this list, as cool as it is from a Catholic stand point does have limited use. I feel that it is best used when talking to someone who is searching for the Truth. When used in a discussion with someone not searching it might not help or even make it worse. I have put this argument into play before and been told “the winners write history, so naturally you show your church as being oldest.” AS with all apologetic tools, circumstance should dictate its use in charity.

 

[jmcrae]

For me, when I first encountered the list, it made sense of what I had seen at St. Andrew’s when the Reformers chopped off the heads of the statues of the Apostles. At the time, I had no idea what they were trying to indicate, because at the time, I was under the impression that all Christian denominations including Catholic and Orthodox were created during the 1400s-1600s - that, due to the human need for structure and order that was coming about during that time in all areas of life, people decided to create an institutional church during that era, and that the Reformation was about the disagreements among various charismatic leaders on how to best achieve this goal - that the differences and separations were caused by flawed human beings doing their best to create a functional institution.

I knew that the Catholic Church had been the first to try this idea, but up until I saw the list, I had no idea that it was actually Jesus who had created the institutional Catholic Church, nor that it had started in 33 AD - I had been under the impression that it was a medieval-era institution - that it was a good “first try” among many tries at creating an institutional church during the shadowy beginnings of the Enlightenment, and that ecumenism was about bringing unity out of the chaos of all these separate tries at creating an institutional form of Christianity.

I had no idea that there had been an institutional Church prior to that time. I had been taught that Christ had never founded an institutional Church; that His Church was in the hearts of believers everywhere, so the vandalism at St. Andrew’s seemed completely random, to me, when I saw it.

Once I figured out that the Roman Catholic Church was considered to be the Apostolic Church, my eyes were opened, and I realized that the Reformers, by vandalizing the statues in St. Andrew’s Cathedral, were setting up a sign to indicate that they were no longer having anything to do with the Apostles and their Church - that is, the Church that Christ founded.

That, far from being some sort of unfortunate misunderstanding among Christians, the Reformation was quite intentional, and understood itself perfectly.

That’s when I got angry with them, because my ancestors (who I think were nice people, given that most of my family is made up of nice people) believed the Reformers, and followed them, and if they aren’t in Hell for breaking with Christ’s Church, then they have been in Purgatory for the last 400~ years, when, if the Reformers had just had the humility to work within the structures of the Church as Christ designed it, my ancestors could have been Saints.

 

[Contarini]

jmcrae,

Thanks for sharing that. St. Andrew’s made me very angry as well. I wish every Protestant could be induced to visit the place–but, alas, some would simply find their faith confirmed. (And to be fair, I also honored the Protestant martyr George Wishart when I was there, though I did it by crossing myself and kissing the spot where he died. So I had mixed reactions–I don’t abandon all my sympathy for the Protestants in recognizing that by and large their victory was disastrous.)

But you’re right–the sheer barbarism and vandalism of what was done to that place says something about the nature of the Reformation (particularly in its hardline Calvinist form).

I don’t quite know what you mean by thinking that there was no institutional church before the Reformation (or at least before the Middle Ages). What did you think was there? How did you think Christians worshiped?

And of course no one claims that all the distinctive institutions of Catholicism date from the time of Jesus, so the claim that Jesus founded the Catholic Church has to be nuanced. Clearly there has been a lot of development, and the claim that this development in no way changed the essence of the Faith is a theological claim that is not historically verifiable (though it can certainly be shown that Catholicism has no dramatic reversals in its history of the kind that happened in the Reformation–Vatican II would come closest, but in terms of official Catholic teaching it certainly still doesn’t cut it, though much of what liberal Catholics did in the name of Vatican II probably does).

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t quite know what you mean by thinking that there was no institutional church before the Reformation (or at least before the Middle Ages). What did you think was there? How did you think Christians worshiped?

I was under the impression that under the Feudal system, people worshipped much as the Plymouth Brethren do today, gathering in their homes at appointed times, with their landlord reading out the Scriptures to them, and the simple folk being moved to speak a word of wisdom on the reading of the day, and then gathering in their clans at Christmas and Easter for larger gatherings with pageants and feasts.

I didn’t realize they had churches or priests, and it would never have even dawned on me that there was a Pope before the time of Michelangelo, or that there were Bishops who could trace their Ordination back in a clear line back to the Apostles.

I suppose I just thought that the Apostles and their followers had disappeared into Europe, working at various trades and spreading the Word of God after the end of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and just moving from village to village and from farm to farm passing out Bibles and encouraging those who could read to pass the word to the illiterate folks.

I think I was probably conflating the pre-Enlightenment period with the pioneer era of my own part of the world, which actually didn’t have any churches in the formal sense of the word, at first, although certainly there were travelling missionaries of all denominations - I guess I thought that the first 1500 years of Christianity followed the same pattern as the pioneer missionaries of the Canadian West.

My own pioneer ancestors met in a bakery for worship until they were able to get a minister and build a Church building, and somewhere along the line someone commented that it was “just like the Early Church” - and I believed her.

 

[bobzills]

It’s not an emotional appeal. The religion we belong to is Christianity. Period. It is not Protestantism. It is not Anglicanism. It is not anything but Christianity.

However, I heard many times Protestasnts saying that Catholics are not Christians.

 

[qui_est_ce]

However, I heard many times Protestasnts saying that Catholics are not Christians.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=185317

I am amazed at JM’s story. I have never heard that theory of church in my entire life. That helps me understand where the “Blood Line” theory comes from.

But I am just as dumb:
I have to say, aside from my Dad, who was Lutheran, (ritual is almost same as mass) I never really hung around with any Protestants. I went to Catholic schools my entire life, including college. Everybody in my neighborhood was Catholic, except fir the Publics Schoolers! I thought all Protestants were Presbyterians, and only went to church when they felt like it because it wasn’t mandatory like cc. I thought Lutherans were just like Catholics except they weren’t Catholic and went to Lutheran Church, (certainly they weren’t Prebysterian). My dad went to his church every Sunday, they had communion once a month, they had Ash Wednesay, Lent, Good Friday, etc. And he always went.

Having said all that, I learned a lot of Church History, because of my education, so I am very surprised by JM’s testimony. As a Catholic, we always used to say that we were the Biblical Church of the Apostles, and that gave us the fullness of Truth. All those Presbyterians did not have this fullness, because their churches were started by humans.

So, hmmm…I think I would have to defer to JM, since Contarini’s background is from a more educated historical view of Christianity.

I would love to see comments on this thread from Protestants. But let’s be prepared…some may come on angry, because they won’t believe it at first. We need to handle with kindness.

 

[Contarini]

However, I heard many times Protestasnts saying that Catholics are not Christians.

And they are horribly wrong. But one reason they conclude this (apart from sheer bigotry) is this unfortunate verbal habit of Catholics of speaking of separate religions. (Others on this forum have noted that poorly informed Catholics sometimes even fall into the habit of talking about “Catholics” and “Christians” as two separate groups.) Most Protestants would say that their religion is Christianity, and when they hear Catholics speak of Catholicism as a religion, this reinforces their prejudices.

That being said, in all fairness the first person I ever heard refer to her specific Christian tradition as a “religion” was a Baptist!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I was under the impression that under the Feudal system, people worshipped much as the Plymouth Brethren do today, gathering in their homes at appointed times, with their landlord reading out the Scriptures to them, and the simple folk being moved to speak a word of wisdom on the reading of the day, and then gathering in their clans at Christmas and Easter for larger gatherings with pageants and feasts.

That’s quite fascinating! I would have believed that this was how people worshiped until Constantine, at which point things became corrupt and the Church started to turn into “Catholicism.” This is I think a more common misreading of history than yours, though yours was more amiable!

And to qui est ce: my family was not intellectual in the sense of having lots of formal higher education (my mother and I graduated from college together). But our house was full of books and ideas, even if the books were almost all pious evangelical books and the ideas were often off the wall by the standards of mainstream academia!

Edwin

 

[Stillkickin]

That’s quite fascinating! I would have believed that this was how people worshiped until Constantine, at which point things became corrupt and the Church started to turn into “Catholicism.”
Edwin

The Church did not become “corrupt” after Constantine. The reason the Church changed is that they were no longer persecuted and so could come out of hiding and were able to worship in public and then build palces of worship fitting for God.

Stillkickin

 

[qui_est_ce]

And to qui est ce: my family was not intellectual in the sense of having lots of formal higher education (my mother and I graduated from college together). But our house was full of books and ideas, even if the books were almost all pious evangelical books and the ideas were often off the wall by the standards of mainstream academia!

Edwin

Same story in my family, full of books, dad never graduated college, but was quite learned. Being intellectual and well-educated does not necessarily go hand in hand with formal education (look at what they teach in some of the colleges these days, I had to take “Writing a 5-paragraph Theme” as a required course in Jesuit University in 1973)!!! And it’s gotten worse.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Church did not become “corrupt” after Constantine. The reason the Church changed is that they were no longer persecuted and so could come out of hiding and were able to worship in public and then build palces of worship fitting for God.

Stillkickin

Contarini meant that Protestants believe this myth. If you read any of his posts, you’ll realize he is most Catholic in his Theology, just hasn’t crossed over yet