How Old is Your Church?

[movwater]

The Anglican, Orthodox, Wesleyan (Methodists) and Episcopal Church would clearly trace their lineage back to Christ. Disagreement with Rome does not nullify the heritage of the tradition, just nullifies the connection with Rome.

But thanks for your post.

And your Chapter and Verse for them to do this is?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Anglican? Through who? Henry VIII?

I forgot the Lutherans too.

The question was not about Apostolic Succession, which has been discussed too many times to rehash here, the question was “when did your church start?”.

Let me give an example. Ben Franklin and his son had a poor relationship. Say his son had a son, and a woman married into the family through that son and they had a child. That Child is a descendant of Benjamin Franklin. Say the woman and her husband divorce, and the child goes with the mother. The mother keeps him away from Dad’s family, like Holiday dinners. That child is still a descendant of Benjamin, They just don’t connect with others in the family.

It is the same with the break away churches. Your line of reasoning is that because someone broke away from Rome, they do not continue to trace their lineage to Christ (or Peter), but they do. They just don’t go to Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanks again for your post.

 

[movwater]

I forgot the Lutherans too.

The question was not about Apostolic Succession, which has been discussed too many times to rehash here, the question was “when did your church start?”.

Let me give an example. Ben Franklin and his son had a poor relationship. Say his son had a son, and a woman married into the family through that son and they had a child. That Child is a descendant of Benjamin Franklin. Say the woman and her husband divorce, and the child goes with the mother. The mother keeps him away from Dad’s family, like Holiday dinners. That child is still a descendant of Benjamin, They just don’t connect with others in the family.

It is the same with the break away churches. Your line of reasoning is that because someone broke away from Rome, they do not continue to trace their lineage to Christ (or Peter), but they do. They just don’t go to Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanks again for your post.

And King Henry VIII’s Scriptural Authority for schism is what? Where does a King get the authority to name himself the head of Christ’s Church on Earth. Even the Magna Carta prohibited that. I believe St. Thomas Moore’s martyrdom is proof that Henry VIII based his sect on a teaching of the Gospel that teaches just the opposite:

Matthew 19

3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:

5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?

8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.

11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

I believe Henry VIII proved this teaching by his death from syphilis!

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[ChurchSoldier]

And King Henry VIII’s Scriptural Authority for schism is what? Where does a King get the authority to name himself the head of Christ’s Church on Earth. Even the Magna Carta prohibited that. I believe St. Thomas Moore’s martyrdom is proof that Henry VIII based his sect on a teaching of the Gospel that teaches just the opposite:

I believe Henry VIII proved this teaching by his death from syphilis!

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

Your point does not have relevance to the argument.

If you want to start a thread “Was Henry VIII Justified in Breaking away?” your post would be right on target. And we’d both be on the same side…

That said, the current day down lines of the churches in my posts do trace their lineage to Christ.

PAX…

 

[movwater]

Many of the breakaway sects from Rome base their creed on the Bible Alone.

Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all united in rejecting the authority of the pope. [Melanchthon for a while was willing to concede this, but only jure humano, or a limited disciplinary superintendency of the Church], the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.

Yet, no where in Scripture can the authority to establish new Christian Sects against the Church that Jesus, the Christ established, undeniably through Peter, His Rock! If I am wrong, please edify me with in context Chapter and Verse.

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[rfournier103]

I feel the need to weigh in here…

I see Protestantism a little differently than most, and view it accordingly.

I can understand SOME of what Luther was trying to accomplish because the Church DID need some serious reform at that time. There was serious corruption, and SOME change in practice (NOT theology) was needed. The intent was good, but the implimentation (in my opinion) was not.

This is where I have my bone to pick with Lutheranism…

Although “Lutherans” see their community as being a legitimate continuation of the Church, as a “Roman” Catholic, I do not. In my PERSONAL opinion, you don’t reject your leaders (ie: the Vicar of Christ) and abandon ship when the going gets tough. You hang in there, and elect a better leader. Since the Office of the Papacy was instituted by Christ (Lutherans refute this), I cannot in good concience reject it, no matter who occupies the office.

The main bone of contention between “Lutherans” and “Roman” Catholics is AUTHORITY. Who has it, and what is it’s scope?

The Church’s position is that Lutheran ordinations are not valid, and they have “left” the Church. As a Catholic, I tow the company line (and in my opinion, agree with it).

ON THE OTHER HAND, we have Henry VIII and the Protestantism that sprang up from HIS grievance with the Church. Henry was not trying to reform corruption, correct some kind of error (maybe an imagined error), or improve worship in any way. He was acting selfishly and was angry that he was not getting his way.

There can be NO excuse for this…

So, in short… I can understand one side (if not agree with it), but the other…?

PS: There are Lutherans who are some of the best posters I have ever seen here, and their knowledge is brilliant. Yes, we have our differences, but we are as close as Catholics and Protestants can be. I pray that one day our differences will be resolved, and we will worship together again. If not in this life, definately the next.

PPS: This goes for ALL Christians… With study, diologue, and a willingness to come together, Christians who seek the truth will band together and make the Church whole once again.

 

[Darryl_B]

Most modern denominations seem to be very good at usurping the position of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[movwater]

I feel the need to weigh in here…

I see Protestantism a little differently than most, and view it accordingly.

I can understand SOME of what Luther was trying to accomplish because the Church DID need some serious reform at that time. There was serious corruption, and SOME change in practice (NOT theology) was needed. The intent was good, but the implimentation (in my opinion) was not.

This is where I have my bone to pick with Lutheranism…

Although “Lutherans” see their community as being a legitimate continuation of the Church, as a “Roman” Catholic, I do not. In my PERSONAL opinion, you don’t reject your leaders (ie: the Vicar of Christ) and abandon ship when the going gets tough. You hang in there, and elect a better leader. Since the Office of the Papacy was instituted by Christ (Lutherans refute this), I cannot in good concience reject it, no matter who occupies the office.

The main bone of contention between “Lutherans” and “Roman” Catholics is AUTHORITY. Who has it, and what is it’s scope?

The Church’s position is that Lutheran ordinations are not valid, and they have “left” the Church. As a Catholic, I tow the company line (and in my opinion, agree with it).

ON THE OTHER HAND, we have Henry VIII and the Protestantism that sprang up from HIS grievance with the Church. Henry was not trying to reform corruption, correct some kind of error (maybe an imagined error), or improve worship in any way. He was acting selfishly and was angry that he was not getting his way.

There can be NO excuse for this…

So, in short… I can understand one side (if not agree with it), but the other…?

PS: There are Lutherans who are some of the best posters I have ever seen here, and their knowledge is brilliant. Yes, we have our differences, but we are as close as Catholics and Protestants can be. I pray that one day our differences will be resolved, and we will worship together again. If not in this life, definately the next.

PPS: This goes for ALL Christians… With study, diologue, and a willingness to come together, Christians who seek the truth will band together and make the Church whole once again.

Excellent Post, rfournier. When viewed in the circumstances of the times - late 15th - early 16th Century - there are at least some explanation of the loss of grace of some of the clergy and even the extensive quest for worldly things (gold) the led the Church off its proper path at the time of the Martin Luther’s schism. One was the Feudal System that grew up during the dark ages and created a situation where the first born noble inherited the family estates and wealth, while his younger brothers either became a mercenary knight, or a clergyman. Unfortunately many of these clergy were not called to God’s service, however, only taking an easier path than the stoic military discipline required of a knight. Additionally, Europe (Christendom) was at this time under siege by the Mohammedan Heresy. This required the Church to finance Crusades to allow safe access to the Holy Land by Christian Pilgrims from Europe. This require much gold and a number of the Popes used the network of Churches to accumulate these War Chests. This along with Priests without a true clergical calling to sale indulgences, which led to Martin Luther’s rebellion.

Now Martin Luther was right in expressing his concerns about the Church in Europe, however, it did not give him the authority, which must come from God, to establish a Church in his image and likeness.

Interestingly, we are now facing a possible greater danger from the Mohammedan Hersey.

Regards, and God Bless,

Neal

 

[movwater]

Your point does not have relevance to the argument.

If you want to start a thread “Was Henry VIII Justified in Breaking away?” your post would be right on target. And we’d both be on the same side…

That said, the current day down lines of the churches in my posts do trace their lineage to Christ.

PAX…

The Problem ChurchSoldier, is anyone “Justified in Breaking away” from the Church which Jesus, the Christ established through Peter the Rock!

Regards, and Go Bless,

Neal

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The Problem ChurchSoldier, is anyone “Justified in Breaking away” from the Church which Jesus, the Christ established through Peter the Rock!

Regards, and Go Bless,

Neal

The problem is you are trying to argue historical lineage with theological justification reasoning.

Have a good night.

 

[Memaw]

I forgot the Lutherans too.

The question was not about Apostolic Succession, which has been discussed too many times to rehash here, the question was “when did your church start?”.

Let me give an example. Ben Franklin and his son had a poor relationship. Say his son had a son, and a woman married into the family through that son and they had a child. That Child is a descendant of Benjamin Franklin. Say the woman and her husband divorce, and the child goes with the mother. The mother keeps him away from Dad’s family, like Holiday dinners. That child is still a descendant of Benjamin, They just don’t connect with others in the family.

It is the same with the break away churches. Your line of reasoning is that because someone broke away from Rome, they do not continue to trace their lineage to Christ (or Peter), but they do. They just don’t go to Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanks again for your post.

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

 

[JonNC]

=movwater;11156163]Please explain, Jon.

Melanchthon speaks to the issue in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

…although the adversaries collect many testimonies on this topic to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult of words will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that this line of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long, does not prove that the Mass confers grace ex opere operato, or that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment. This one reply overthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this Confutation, but in all writings which they have published concerning the Mass.

bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php

Okay, what do you believe these difference to be?

That some books, such as the DC’s have had disputes about their canonicity dating back to the early Church. Now disputes, even when from the likes of St. Jerome, does not necessarily mean they are not canonical, or not part of the historic scripture, but it does mean that, at least Lutherans, use them with greater caution. This is also true of the NT Antilegomena in terms of doctrine. It doesn’t mean they are not scripture, but it is an exercise in respect for the opinions and beliefs of the early Church.

What about Jesus, the Christ, Jon, did he not have the ability to name head of his Church on Earth? If so, than please explain these verses:

Sure He did, and I have o problem with an understanding of the leadership role St. Peter played. And while this, in part, certainly led to a primacy for the Roman see, it doesn’t translate into universal jurisdiction.

Does this Chapter have any special meaning? Was Jesus, the Christ, establishing His Church on earth, and setting St. Peter as its Pontiff?

The issue isn’t whether or not he is the Roman Pontiff, Neal. The issue is what level of primacy does that become.

Thank you, Jon, for you kind understanding. As for the alignment of the Lutherans and Anglicans with Roman Catholics, I concur. In fact, many of those Anglican Priests that could not continence the rapid loss of accepted norms of their church for centuries have apparently found their way “Home to Rome”. See: Breaking the bonds of communion By: FATHER RAYMOND J. DE SOUZA at: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0895.htm

Thanks, Neal, and His blessings,

Jon

 

[JonNC]

JonNC, You say,

“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”.

You are saying, Church Catholic. but that is misleading. The prayer is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The only Christian Church that has all 4 of these marks is the Holy Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostles with Peter as their head, that teaches ALL the Truths Jesus gave His Church over 2,000 years ago. The Catholic Church has not deviated one bit from all Jesus revealed to His Church. We call that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, (hand in hand).

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.

By the way, where were you and all the others before the Protestant Reformation in 1517. We have been there all along. And why have the protestant denominations been dividing and dividing since then until there are over 30,00 different ones. God Bless, Memaw

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

 

[JonNC]

I feel the need to weigh in here…

I see Protestantism a little differently than most, and view it accordingly.

I can understand SOME of what Luther was trying to accomplish because the Church DID need some serious reform at that time. There was serious corruption, and SOME change in practice (NOT theology) was needed. The intent was good, but the implimentation (in my opinion) was not.

This is where I have my bone to pick with Lutheranism…

Although “Lutherans” see their community as being a legitimate continuation of the Church, as a “Roman” Catholic, I do not. In my PERSONAL opinion, you don’t reject your leaders (ie: the Vicar of Christ) and abandon ship when the going gets tough. You hang in there, and elect a better leader. Since the Office of the Papacy was instituted by Christ (Lutherans refute this), I cannot in good concience reject it, no matter who occupies the office.

The main bone of contention between “Lutherans” and “Roman” Catholics is AUTHORITY. Who has it, and what is it’s scope?

The Church’s position is that Lutheran ordinations are not valid, and they have “left” the Church. As a Catholic, I tow the company line (and in my opinion, agree with it).

ON THE OTHER HAND, we have Henry VIII and the Protestantism that sprang up from HIS grievance with the Church. Henry was not trying to reform corruption, correct some kind of error (maybe an imagined error), or improve worship in any way. He was acting selfishly and was angry that he was not getting his way.

There can be NO excuse for this…

So, in short… I can understand one side (if not agree with it), but the other…?

PS: There are Lutherans who are some of the best posters I have ever seen here, and their knowledge is brilliant. Yes, we have our differences, but we are as close as Catholics and Protestants can be. I pray that one day our differences will be resolved, and we will worship together again. If not in this life, definately the next.

PPS: This goes for ALL Christians… With study, diologue, and a willingness to come together, Christians who seek the truth will band together and make the Church whole once again.

It is my opinion that this is an excellent post, not because I agree with everything you said, but because you said it in a way that made me want to.

Jon

 

[yogosans14]

I don’t get why some Catholics are so haughty because they belong to 2,000 year old Church.

Protestants are Christian TOO, the Church is the body of born again believers (Colossians 1:24). Not a physical building.

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s not haughty…it’s fact. How do these others who came so much later justify their doctrines that do not concur with either the Word of God or the verifiable writings of the early Christian church, which gave its life for what they believed.

Ever read about being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

Take a look at my article Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[yogosans14]

That’s not haughty…it’s fact. How do these others who came so much later justify their doctrines that do not concur with either the Word of God or the verifiable writings of the early Christian church, which gave its life for what they believed.

Ever read about being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

Take a look at my article Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

Again, you think someones relationship with God is less because they dont belong to a certain demonation. But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess…

 

[Church_Militant]

Again, you think someones relationship with God is less because they dont belong to a certain demonation. But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess…

You don’t seem to even see the point.

If, as we all believe, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, then doesn’t it make sense that the original, New Testament, “full Gospel”, church would be the one that we would need and want to be part of?

Catholicism, unlike all the others in the list above, is not, in fact, a “denomination”, but the original church that Jesus Christ founded. It doesn’t matter what these others say about themselves, because the historical facts speak for themselves, and any honest inquirer can see that just by taking the time to look into Christian history.

For instance, I suggest that you carefully read the following research article that I did and posted on my blog.What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

How Old is Your Church?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Author and Source Unknown

From: How Old is Your Church? at: catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0031.html

I believe it’s from the book “My Catholic Faith”

Online version can be found here: catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc051.htm

 

[Darryl_B]

Again, you think someones relationship with God is less because they dont belong to a certain demonation. But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess…

Denomination is a split of a name into smaller parts. 1000s 100s 10s and what protestant seems to eventually end in 1s. A Demonstration is a putting on show as in say monstrance. A demonation is … I have no idea what?

Sorry, but Jesus Christ founded His Kingdom, and belonging to that Kingdom, is not on your terms. You cannot show up and say “Right Jesus I will belong to your Kingdom but here are my terms and conditions. Number 1 I have the freedom to split and create my own church.” Haughty? Possibly.

A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. But you are talking about you as an individual, (notice divid in individual is the same as divid in divided). “I have a relationship with Jesus, isn’t that all that matters?”. It is easy to loose a lot of sleep over that dilemma.

Granted it is an easy dilemma to overcome when you don’t believe that Jesus Christ currently has a Kingdom and that it is something He is waiting to receive.