How Old is Your Church?

[ChurchSoldier]

My goodness it amazes me sometimes how we can rationalize things. It’s not a blood line, it’s a Faith line. ‘Breakaway churches’ lost the most important connection to the Holy Catholic Faith and that is the True Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, Body. Blood, Soul and Divinity. and the Sacraments. Through the loss of Apostolic Succession. I would recommend you reading a good book on the Early Church Fathers and what they believed about that. God Bless, Memaw

I have a friend who says most people are indoctrinated into their religion rather than educated. As such, just repeat what they were taught rather than researching for themselves. I find this to be true, and the church suffers for it. One of the things I like about CA is it is a good place to learn about the Catholic faith and other faiths as well.

Since you seem to be so stuck on the Succession question, when is it believed that Succession was lost in the Anglican Church and who was the Monarch? (Just to save an email, it’s not 1534 nor Henry VIII).

 

[Memaw]

I have a friend who says most people are indoctrinated into their religion rather than educated. As such, just repeat what they were taught rather than researching for themselves. I find this to be true, and the church suffers for it. One of the things I like about CA is it is a good place to learn about the Catholic faith and other faiths as well.

Since you seem to be so stuck on the Succession question, when is it believed that Succession was lost in the Anglican Church and who was the Monarch? (Just to save an email, it’s not 1534 nor Henry VIII).

Pope Leo XIII and also it was restated at the Council of Trent I believe. I love the way some people word things, I am not stuck on Succession as you say, but I do believe what the Catholic Church teaches and declares true. She is quided by and kept from error by the Holy Spirit.God Bless, Memaw

 

[pocohombre]

It is interesting that some of our debated doctrines were said to have developed,evolved over time,even centuries. Yet if one takes a position contrary to today’s final resting spot of a said doctrine, it may be heretical,or considered “new” or man made, even though at one time it was not. For example, if one today says Mary was not “Assumed”" or “Immaculate” it would be "wrong’ yet 500 years ago it would not have been. Furthermore some doctrines considered “new” at the time were only new relative to the current resting spot of the opposed view. For example "the “trinity” seemed new when it was finally defined (3-4the century ?) but it was not really new, except in contrast to those who began saying otherwise. Also by Luther’s time there were varied, polarizing views on authority, be it papal or by council, and be it by scripture or by tradition…My point is, nothing is done in a vacuum, so it is a bit disconcerting to me to state a church began on such and such a date. But, if one considers the church to be a religion, an organization, as other worldly institutions, yes, there are beginning points. If one considers the church to be made up of believers who have a relationship with Christ,hence “Christian”, age has no bearing. If we consider a “church” as defined by a statement of faith and doctrines, there may be a date put to it, but it is a matter of opinion whether there be anything “new”, or man made in them. In fact most of the organizations listed in the opening thread truly believe they were merely putting things back in order the way they were at a much earlier time in church history. Again nothing is done in a vacuum , as the opening thread suggests in my opinion.

 

[pocohombre]

Does age suggest superiority ? Is Catholicism better than Lutheranism ,and Lutheranism better than Mormonism or JW’s or any newer church ? All of our churches should heed Job 32- “Days should speak, and a multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgement”…Yes, give honor where it is due, to all our forefathers in the faith, be they considered Catholic, Lutheran, baptist etc. Let every generation answer to the Lord for itself, and may we not rest wrongly on what was laid before us. As many here do not buy OSAS (once saved always saved) I do not buy ORAR (once right always right) for any church.He is perfecting His Bride,She shall be spotless.His Kingdom is advancing.

 

[Darryl_B]

Does age suggest superiority ? Is Catholicism better than Lutheranism ,and Lutheranism better than Mormonism or JW’s or any newer church ? All of our churches should heed Job 32- “Days should speak, and a multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgement”…Yes, give honor where it is due, to all our forefathers in the faith, be they considered Catholic, Lutheran, baptist etc. Let every generation answer to the Lord for itself, and may we not rest wrongly on what was laid before us. As many here do not buy OSAS (once saved always saved) I do not buy ORAR (once right always right) for any church.He is perfecting His Bride,She shall be spotless.His Kingdom is advancing.

I tend to disagree with your misapplication of Job 32. Job 32:7 is Elihu implicating the friends of Job who have just spoken, through a battle of wits and jovial ribbings. Just because they are old men does not make them of wise council. You then employ this battle of wits to relative ages of churches, and therefore attempt to implicate the Catholic Church in the same vain as Elihu does the old friends. I don’t find that the linkage you are attempting to draw satisfies the context, though it would be very compelling if you were running for president and this was your speech.

Personally I prefer the speech of God himself. “Where were you when I formed …”

(Implied The Church).

 

[pocohombre]

I tend to disagree with your misapplication of Job 32. Job 32:7 is Elihu implicating the friends of Job who have just spoken, through a battle of wits and jovial ribbings. Just because they are old men does not make them of wise council. You then employ this battle of wits to relative ages of churches, and therefore attempt to implicate the Catholic Church in the same vain as Elihu does the old friends. I don’t find that the linkage you are attempting to draw satisfies the context, though it would be very compelling if you were running for president and this was your speech.

Personally I prefer the speech of God himself. “Where were you when I formed …”

(Implied The Church).

Thank you for the thoughtful response.I exhorted “all churches” to gleen from Job and every generation not to err, and to give honor to all when due. Job’s friends I would think were righteous,for Job himself was,and they were restored.They just happened to get this one situation wrong. Again, my application is to all churches. …As far as God’s speech and “where was I (or where were we) when he formed…” I was (we were) on His mind, already chosen sheep.

 

[Memaw]

I’m sorry the term mislead you. The Lutheran confessions used the term, so apparently it was more familiar then.
Well, here’s the question on the bolded, Orthodoxy also says they have not deviated one bit, and they use Sacred Tradition, but you and they don’t agree on a number of issues, including jurisdiction.

My 5th grade students think I’m old, but not THAT old.
Seriously, and to your point. One, I am a confessional Lutheran, a member of one communion. I can’t speak for the 29,999 others, just as I can’t speak for the two communions that came out of the Great Schism. What I can tell you from a Lutheran perspective is that prior to 1517, we share the exact same heritage as you as western Christians. We confess the same creeds, even with the Filioque, we accept the first seven general councils of the Church, and we honor the early saints and martyrs of the Church, just as you do. We don’t teach the silliness known as the “Great Apostasy”, and there are even popes that populate our Church festival calendar. We are Catholic, just not currently in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Jon

I have known Lutherans but never one that claimed to be Catholic. Let me ask, do you have Apostolic Succession like the Catholic Church does. God Bless, Memaw

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

We don’t teach the silliness known as the “Great Apostasy”, and there are even popes that populate our Church festival calendar. We are Catholic, just not currently in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

You should read up on the Donatist heresy. They also called themselves Catholics. St. Augustine’s famous line was “securus judicat orbis terrarum” or “the verdict of the world is conclusive” Puts things in perspective, and shines the light of reality upon the subject.

I know I said this already in another thread, but the via media is just a theory on paper. In reality, it just doesn’t exist. For anyone unfamiliar with the via media, it’s the theory that there can be a church in the middle way, IOW, between the Catholic Church and the Protestant. But when push comes to shove, Lutherans ordain women, have no problem with birth control, and in general align themselves with Sola Scriptura Protestants, while maintaining they follow a sort of tradition (of documents crafted by anonymous synodal committees) and adhere to early councils of the Church. Of course they don’t have Apostolic Succession or Authority, and never did have.

If St. Augustine was alive today and asked for directions to a Catholic Church, does ANYBODY today, think he would be directed to a Lutheran Church??? What if a Catholic stranger on the street asked a native of the town? A hotel concierge? A Patrolman? A taxi driver? Would ANYONE send a Catholic to a Lutheran Church? That’s what I mean by reality.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Pope Leo XIII and also it was restated at the Council of Trent I believe. I love the way some people word things, I am not stuck on Succession as you say, but I do believe what the Catholic Church teaches and declares true. She is quided by and kept from error by the Holy Spirit.God Bless, Memaw

That’s a good start. But you need to go a bit further. Leo XIII just proclaimed something based on an event (or non-event per the Roman church). He declared Anglican orders null and void. Why did he do that? What was it that caused them to be “null and void”?

 

[Darryl_B]

Thank you for the thoughtful response.I exhorted “all churches” to gleen from Job and every generation not to err, and to give honor to all when due. Job’s friends I would think were righteous,for Job himself was,and they were restored.They just happened to get this one situation wrong. Again, my application is to all churches. …As far as God’s speech and “where was I (or where were we) when he formed…” I was (we were) on His mind, already chosen sheep.

You did have an opening statement/question. That statement/question was

Does age suggest superiority?

You then use Job 32 to say “no”. When the answer is actually “yes”. For, at the root of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church was a God who formed the foundation, and because you and I were not there when God worked His authority or His purpose, we hardly have the privilege to ignore it and just be “us this generation”. What if the one situation you and I got wrong, was to consider split from the historical Church to be okay for our generation, on the basis that we shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of previous generations?

 

[Darryl_B]

That’s a good start. But you need to go a bit further. Leo XIII just proclaimed something based on an event (or non-event per the Roman church). He declared Anglican orders null and void. Why did he do that? What was it that caused them to be “null and void”?

I think Pope Leo XIII was just declaring the obvious and it was always considered the case anyway, just not in official declarative form. I think it wasn’t declared formerly earlier because there would be repercussions on the Catholic community in England.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think Pope Leo XIII was just declaring the obvious and it was always considered the case anyway, just not in official declarative form. I think it wasn’t declared formerly earlier because there would be repercussions on the Catholic community in England.

Another reason may have been because it was a non-issue earlier. IOW, Anglicans were completely unconcerned with whether Rome recognized their Orders or not. After all, the Church of England did not recognize Roman Catholic Priests either, in fact it was treason (at first) for them to remain on English soil. It became an issue AFTER the Oxford movement pulled the Anglican communion closer to Rome. Then there was discussion about the validity of Anglican orders.

 

[SPH1]

As Lutherans, we believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is but one Church, the Church Catholic, started by Christ Himself at Pentecost, of which Lutherans are members.
Jon

No, the one holy catholic church is not the same as this “church catholic” you refer to. I have a pretty fair idea of what you mean by “church catholic” and let’s all admit that this “church catholic” would not even be capable of holding an ecumenical council. It was not the “church catholic” that gave us the creed; rather, it was the Catholic Church.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

because it was a non-issue earlier.

I think you’re right on that.

The event I was referring to was Matthew Parkers’ Consecration as Archbishop in 1559 which allegedly broke the line of Succession. The point being, Henry’s Church (from 1534-47 when he died), and the through Edward, Mary and into Elizabeth I’s reign, was no different than the Orthodox., having valid Succession but rejecting Papal Authority.

So the question would be, does a Church need valid Succession to be valid?
If the answer is yes, then there is no such thing as an Anglican, or any other church other than RC or Orthodox (and their down lines OCC, PNCC, Union Ultrecht etc.). A lot of Traditional Catholics would agree that this is true.

So, the real question is, is the Anglican Church (in this scenario) a church? If it is, then it goes back to Pentecost. If it doesn’t exist, then including it in the answer “when did your church begin” would make no sense.

Pius V declared Elizabeth heretic, so there must have been a presumed connection long after Henry died. If the presumption was occurring then, why would it not continue now?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

ChurchSoldier:

So, the real question is, is the Anglican Church (in this scenario) a church? If it is, then it goes back to Pentecost. If it doesn’t exist, then including it in the answer “when did your church begin” would make no sense.

A lot depends on how you define Church. I can agree that Anglicans and Lutherans DO have a church, or in Catholic terms “an ecclesial community.” Its members are baptized Christians, and are therefore members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. So in a very broad sense some Protestants can say they go back to Pentecost.

These churches are “bulwarks against infidelity” to use John Henry Newman’s words, and so have a vital function in this world as well. It is often seen also that our most inspired converts were formerly devout Protestants. So there is much we can thank Protestants for!

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

It is often seen also that our most inspired converts were formerly devout Protestants. So there is much we can thank Protestants for!

You mean there is much we can thank God for.

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;11166055]You should read up on the Donatist heresy. They also called themselves Catholics. St. Augustine’s famous line was “securus judicat orbis terrarum” or “the verdict of the world is conclusive” Puts things in perspective, and shines the light of reality upon the subject.

No need.

I know I said this already in another thread, but the via media is just a theory on paper. In reality, it just doesn’t exist. For anyone unfamiliar with the via media, it’s the theory that there can be a church in the middle way, IOW, between the Catholic Church and the Protestant.

That’s not the way we see ourselves.

But when push comes to shove, Lutherans ordain women, have no problem with birth control

Confessional Lutherans do not ordain women, and the position of the LCMS on contraception is not dissimilar to that of Orthodoxy, as I understand it.

, and in general align themselves with Sola Scriptura Protestants

Not sure what “align” means. We certainly do not have altar and pulpit fellowship with those we do not share doctrinal agreement with.

while maintaining they follow a sort of tradition (of documents crafted by anonymous synodal committees) and adhere to early councils of the Church. Of course they don’t have Apostolic Succession or Authority, and never did have.

Nothing any more anonymous than any other synodical committee. Head to the LCMS website if seeing names is of great import to you.

If St. Augustine was alive today and asked for directions to a Catholic Church, does ANYBODY today, think he would be directed to a Lutheran Church??? What if a Catholic stranger on the street asked a native of the town? A hotel concierge? A Patrolman? A taxi driver? Would ANYONE send a Catholic to a Lutheran Church? That’s what I mean by reality.

So, modern colloquialism is a determinant factor here?
Look, I’ve enjoyed our chat, but it seems it is moving more toward caricatures and attempts at veiled jabs, instead of dialogue. I’ve posted no posts going through a litany of what I think the Catholic Church is or believes. You are welcome to your opinion of Lutheranism.

His peace,

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

So, modern colloquialism is a determinant factor here?
Look, I’ve enjoyed our chat, but it seems it is moving more toward caricatures and attempts at veiled jabs, instead of dialogue. I’ve posted no posts going through a litany of what I think the Catholic Church is or believes. You are welcome to your opinion of Lutheranism.

I sometimes misread people. It’s easy to do on the internet. Sorry if I have given offense as none was intended.

 

[Darryl_B]

I think you’re right on that.

The event I was referring to was Matthew Parkers’ Consecration as Archbishop in 1559 which allegedly broke the line of Succession. The point being, Henry’s Church (from 1534-47 when he died), and the through Edward, Mary and into Elizabeth I’s reign, was no different than the Orthodox., having valid Succession but rejecting Papal Authority.

So the question would be, does a Church need valid Succession to be valid?
If the answer is yes, then there is no such thing as an Anglican, or any other church other than RC or Orthodox (and their down lines OCC, PNCC, Union Ultrecht etc.). A lot of Traditional Catholics would agree that this is true.

So, the real question is, is the Anglican Church (in this scenario) a church? If it is, then it goes back to Pentecost. If it doesn’t exist, then including it in the answer “when did your church begin” would make no sense.

Pius V declared Elizabeth heretic, so there must have been a presumed connection long after Henry died. If the presumption was occurring then, why would it not continue now?

You are asking a lot of questions about the validity of the Anglican Church. Can I ask you please what your opinion or answer is to the same question.

 

[JonNC]

I sometimes misread people. It’s easy to do on the internet. Sorry if I have given offense as none was intended.

No offense taken. I just didn’t want it to go there between us, so we can dialogue in the future as friends.

Jon