Founding dates of Christian demoninations

[mozart-250]

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.

Well I was going to respond to the original post with something like “Your point being?”. But I see Edwin has done a much better job of essentially asking the same thing.

 

[Jguerra]

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.

I hope I am reading this correctly, Edwin. Boettner is conveying a fraudulent impression by not supplying enough substantive research to bolster his claims. Consider Karl Keating’s summary: “But when the mistakes so gross and so frequent as Boettner’s, when there is almost no effort to present the other side’s point of view, when the ‘authorities’ one relies to state the Catholic position are mainly professional Catholic baiters–when all this happens, can the reader be blamed for thinking the book was composed in bad faith?. . .[T]he history he presents is not the history of the Catholic Church.” Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, (c)1988, Ignatius Press

Anyway, the thread is steering away from the original intent. The founding dates of the Christian denominations listed originally will stand the scrutiny of historical research.

Joe

 

[Contarini]

The Church did not become “corrupt” after Constantine.

Sorry not to make myself clearer–that is not what I believe. It’s what I used to believe when I was growing up.

Edwin

 

[bobzills]

The Church did not become “corrupt” after Constantine.

That is correct according to the Eastern Orthodox. According to them, the Roman Church became corrupt after 1054, whereas the Eastern Chuirch remained Orthodox as it is today.

 

[Teflon93]

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

Wow, way to come out against anti-Catholic bigotry, Edwin—it’s Catholics’ fault!

How many of the anti-Catholic bigots out there do you think actually know any Catholics, much less listen to any?

This is a bridge too far.

 

[Teflon93]

That is correct according to the Eastern Orthodox. According to them, the Roman Church became corrupt after 1054, whereas the Eastern Chuirch remained Orthodox as it is today.

The Orthodox do not, I believe, point to 1054 as the date the western Church became corrupt but rather a gradual corruption eventually leading to their break with her.

In other words, the Orthodox would likely say that it was the corruption that led to the break and not the other way around.

But they speak ably for themselves.

 

[Contarini]

Wow, way to come out against anti-Catholic bigotry, Edwin—it’s Catholics’ fault!

How many of the anti-Catholic bigots out there do you think actually know any Catholics

Lots of them do. Many of them are ex-Catholics, as you surely know. That does not mean that they know Catholicism well, in the sense of official Catholic teaching or good Catholic theology and spirituality. But they do know a lot of Catholics, and they defend their misinterpretations of Catholicism on the basis of what they have seen and heard from “ordinary” Catholics.

And then there are others who form their opinions without any personal experience. But even then they often do so on the testimony of people who do have personal experience.

Of course, I never said that anti-Catholicism was Catholics’ fault. I said that this particular way of speaking contributes to confirming the anti-Catholic prejudices that already exist. However, at this point I would frankly be shocked if you were capable of describing anything I said accurately. Your record so far is quite consistent on this point–you are convinced that I’m some sort of enemy of Catholicism and so you twist everything I say to conform to your prejudice.

Admittedly, based on my own remarks above, I bear some responsibility insofar as incautious or unclear statements of mine serve to confirm those prejudices!

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

Lots of them do. Many of them are ex-Catholics, as you surely know. That does not mean that they know Catholicism well, in the sense of official Catholic teaching or good Catholic theology and spirituality. But they do know a lot of Catholics, and they defend their misinterpretations of Catholicism on the basis of what they have seen and heard from “ordinary” Catholics.

Indeed, I’d say that to the extent anti-Catholics know about Catholicism at all, it tends to be through ex-Catholics in their midst. My experience in the Bible Belt may not be indicative of the whole, certainly, but I don’t think anti-Catholics tend to know lots of Catholics. Otherwise, it might undermine their bigotry.

Of course, I never said that anti-Catholicism was Catholics’ fault. I said that this particular way of speaking contributes to confirming the anti-Catholic prejudices that already exist. However, at this point I would frankly be shocked if you were capable of describing anything I said accurately. Your record so far is quite consistent on this point–you are convinced that I’m some sort of enemy of Catholicism and so you twist everything I say to conform to your prejudice.

The Great Contarini does it again!

Edwin, you’re completely predictable. You complain about something you said I did, and then you do the exact same thing. It’s a sitcom at this point—all you need is a catchphrase.

Now, once again and for the record, I don’t think you’re anti-Catholic. I think you’re very ambivalent toward Catholicism, and that you tend to reflexively criticize the Church while giving Protestants a pass. Thus, you can’t simply state unequivocally that anti-Catholics are bigots. You have to insinuate they’re bigots because Catholics are bad Catholics, when many of these folks do not have any extensive personal knowledge of Catholics at all. They admit as much. Why should they have such knowledge? We make up a small minority of Christians in America, and on top of that most of us are ethnic minorities to boot, largely Hispanic and Irish.

In fact, anti-Catholic bigotry and ethnic bigotry in America have had a long and interrelated history. One may be anti-Catholic without being anti-Irish or anti-Hispanic, surely, but being anti-Catholic is a socially acceptable bigotry these days whereas ethnic bigotry is not.

Admittedly, based on my own remarks above, I bear some responsibility insofar as incautious or unclear statements of mine serve to confirm those prejudices!

Edwin

Yes, but you can always simply edit your post or don’t hit Save. I do that from time to time myself.

I think the really interesting question you might ask yourself is, “Why is the notion that Christ founded the Catholic Church producing a knee-jerk reaction in me?”

It does not affect every non-Catholic that way, you know.