In what order did each church appear?

[RonWI]

If you are Catholic, then the Lutheran Church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther. If you are Lutheran, your church was established in Acts 2, and was cleansed of error in 1517.

Now, you can call Lutherans wrong. But you cannot say: Lutherans, this is what you believe. After all, what is your response when Evangelicals start “teaching” you Catholic doctrine?

 

[buffalo]

RonWI:

If you are Catholic, then the Lutheran Church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther. If you are Lutheran, your church was established in Acts 2, and was cleansed of error in 1517.

Now, you can call Lutherans wrong. But you cannot say: Lutherans, this is what you believe. After all, what is your response when Evangelicals start “teaching” you Catholic doctrine?

The Lutherans are in error. How does one correct error? By educating them with the truth.

 

[RonWI]

buffalo:

The Lutherans are in error. How does one correct error? By educating them with the truth.

That was not my point. My point was: a Catholic cannot say “Lutherans believe their church was founded by Martin Luther in 1517” any more than a Lutheran can say “Catholics believe that they should worship Mary”. Don’t say “Lutherans believe…” if that is not what they believe.

You hardly are going to correct error if you begin by misstating the other side’s position.

 

[boppysbud]

Nonsense, there were only three original Protestant churches.

The Lutherans, founded in what is now Germany by Martin Luther in the early 1500’s.

The Calvinist/Reformed founded by John Calvin in Geneva also in the early 1500s.

The Anglicans/Church of England founded by Cramner and Henry viith in the mid 1500s.

All the other Protestant denominations came from splinters from these original three.

The Presbyterians in Scotland, came from the Geneva Calvinist/Reformed.

The Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists and many others came from splinters from the Anglicans, and from further schisms from schisms.

 

[BOANERGES21]

RonWI:

If you are Catholic, then the Lutheran Church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther. If you are Lutheran, your church was established in Acts 2, and was cleansed of error in 1517.

Now, you can call Lutherans wrong. But you cannot say: Lutherans, this is what you believe. After all, what is your response when Evangelicals start “teaching” you Catholic doctrine?

Hi RonWI. Are their specific versus in Acts you refer to? I ask only because this is the first time I have heard that before.

thx

 

[RonWI]

BOANERGES21:

Hi RonWI. Are their specific versus in Acts you refer to? I ask only because this is the first time I have heard that before.

thx

If you ask a Lutheran, he will say that the establishment of the Christian Church was recorded in Acts 2. From there, it grew and its hierarchy is documented in the cannons of the Council of Nicea. Lutherans will say that these, and other cannons show that the universal church was the collection of the various churches at the time. It was not the church at Rome, with all others submitted to it. You can disagree, but that is the position.

The Lutheran will continue: Just as in the Council at Jerusalem and the Council at Nicea, what makes a church the part of the universal Christian Church is not submission to the Bishop of Rome, but confession of Christ as the sacrificed and resurrected Son of God. Thus, while the Bishop of Rome claimed authority over all churches, such claim did not invalidate the authenticity of those churches that refused to submit to Rome, i.e., the Eastern Orthodox churches were just as much a part of, and descended from, the very Church founded in Acts.

Fast forward to 16th Century Germany. Remember that we are not talking of Martin Luther the monk holed up somewhere. We are talking about hundreds of individual churchs in dozens of principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. By the middle of the century, these churches saw themselves the same way they saw, for example, the church of Alexandria at the time of the Council of Nicea: not a subserviant part of the Roman Church, but as legitimate, independent, co-equal churches. Their legitimacy depended not on their submission to Rome, but on the authenticiy of their confession.

Here is the key: Unlike others, the Germans did not toss out the baby tradition with the erroneous bathwater. The Germans did rely (in their minds, you are free to disagree) on the writings of church fathers to support their positions. For example, when called to state their position before Emperor Charles in Augsburg in 1530, after the formalities, the Germans’ very first words were:

Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting…

Given the foregoing, the 16th century Germans did not view themselves as establishing a “new” church. They viewed themselves as they did the EO churches and the churches at Nicea: rightful members of the universal Christian Church, none of whom submitted to Rome.

This is why I say: you are not going to convince a Lutheran he is wrong by telling him he thinks his church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Thanks for that excellent reference! I bookmarked it for my future reference. God Bless.

PAX

SL20:

Try this site:

scborromeo.org/truth/figure1.pdf

 

[ChristopherMich]

Yes that .pdf file is wonderful. Thank you for that.

 

[CatherineofA]

JackmanUSC:

well since Christ appointed Peter his head apostle to lead his flock and Peter died in Rome, then appointed Linus, also in the Bible, to be his successor, and so forth, the apostolic succession from Peter can be seen only in the Catholic Church. No protestant church can claim this apostolic authority. No Protestant Church can say their original leaders were present at Pentacost with Christ. How do we know Christ appointed his apostles, led by Peter, to be his Holy Catholic Church, because there was no Bible to distribute. Had Christ not wanted the heirarchical structure of the Church authority to be there he would have explicitely stated so, but he said otherwise on many different occasions. No other historical founding date is given for the Catholic Church except for that given during Pentacost.

Protestant churches don’t care about a hierarchical apostolic sucession. They believe that everyone is an heir to the gospel through salvation in Christ.
Do you have any book sources or journal articles that document Peter’s connection to the Catholic Church? I am currently reading a book called The Rise of Christianity by W H C Frend and it was recommended to me by someone connected with Columbia University. It is supposedly a required text overview of the early church. As of yet, the first few years have no Catholic claims. You can see it on www.amazon.com if you wonder what it looks like.

 

[Genesis315]

I always wondered how Protestant churches without bishops reconcile that with the fact the Scripture clearly defines an episcopate and hiearchy (bishops, presbyters, deacons).

Anyway, here are some quotes by early Christians. I’m sure if you research you can find the whole documents.

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp%between%

 

[MrS]

CatherineofA:

Protestant churches don’t care about a hierarchical apostolic sucession. They believe that everyone is an heir to the gospel through salvation in Christ.
Do you have any book sources or journal articles that document Peter’s connection to the Catholic Church? I am currently reading a book called The Rise of Christianity by W H C Frend and it was recommended to me by someone connected with Columbia University. It is supposedly a required text overview of the early church. As of yet, the first few years have no Catholic claims. You can see it on www.amazon.com if you wonder what it looks like.

Try the History of the Church, Christianity by Warren Carroll. The first four volumes are available now, with 2 more to come… but more than enough real and verifiable information and references to dispel the claims you are making.

 

[RonWI]

Protestant churches have bishops. They just are not Catholic bishops.

Lutheran bishops:
wfn.org/2001/01/msg00073.html

Anglican bishops:
cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9808/05/anglican.conference/

Of course, you will get debate over whether the uses of the words “bishop” and “elder” referred to the same or different offices in theNew Testament.

 

[Genesis315]

RonWI:

Protestant churches have bishops. They just are not Catholic bishops.

But many don’t. Like how do non-denominational people get around that?

 

[Exporter]

CatherineofA:

Two bad points on this website:

1. Makes assumption that Catholic Church was established by Christ. A disclaimer is needed since Non-Catholics do not perceive it that way.
2. Some Protestant denominational information is too generalized.

---

You wrote that IT IS an ASSUMPTION that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.

1. Catherine of A, will you tell me who did establish the Church of the Apostles?
2. What is your authority to say that Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church?
3. Why are you assuming that someone other than Christ started the first Christian church>
4. Certaintly you have read Matthew 16:18 - 19… Who doe that passage say started the church. But more than just Biblical verses tell us the whole story. It is like reading history, sorry but the FACTS cry out to dispute you.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Ron,

We can go on and on and on in circles with arguments like a ferris wheel, but with just one bottomline:

Any church can claim itself to be the first and the true church. No objectivity therefore can arise since anyone can make such claim. Neither a disclaimer can help because anyone can make such claim as well. The website, whostartedyourchurch.com doesn’t need a disclaimer (as what Catherine in this forum suggested) for the name of the website itself is already telling us that it’s bias and making a claim. The issue therefore is subjective. How can we, therefore, be objective? We go to the historical facts (past) and present day evidence and link those two. Do this and you will find the answer where all other churches broke from: The Roman Catholic Church. You might say what I am saying here is biased. But I already have gone through the historical facts and was able to link it to the Papacy.

How, then, can I convince a Lutheran he is wrong? By going back to 1517, the year his church broke away from the Catholic Church. I won’t let him trace back his church to ACTS, since I can also trace back my church to ACTS (we both can have the same claim, right?), I will let him trace his church to the time it broke away from the Catholic Church.

PAX

RonWI:

If you ask a Lutheran, he will say that the establishment of the Christian Church was recorded in Acts 2. From there, it grew and its hierarchy is documented in the cannons of the Council of Nicea. Lutherans will say that these, and other cannons show that the universal church was the collection of the various churches at the time. It was not the church at Rome, with all others submitted to it. You can disagree, but that is the position.

The Lutheran will continue: Just as in the Council at Jerusalem and the Council at Nicea, what makes a church the part of the universal Christian Church is not submission to the Bishop of Rome, but confession of Christ as the sacrificed and resurrected Son of God. Thus, while the Bishop of Rome claimed authority over all churches, such claim did not invalidate the authenticity of those churches that refused to submit to Rome, i.e., the Eastern Orthodox churches were just as much a part of, and descended from, the very Church founded in Acts.

Fast forward to 16th Century Germany. Remember that we are not talking of Martin Luther the monk holed up somewhere. We are talking about hundreds of individual churchs in dozens of principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. By the middle of the century, these churches saw themselves the same way they saw, for example, the church of Alexandria at the time of the Council of Nicea: not a subserviant part of the Roman Church, but as legitimate, independent, co-equal churches. Their legitimacy depended not on their submission to Rome, but on the authenticiy of their confession.

Here is the key: Unlike others, the Germans did not toss out the baby tradition with the erroneous bathwater. The Germans did rely (in their minds, you are free to disagree) on the writings of church fathers to support their positions. For example, when called to state their position before Emperor Charles in Augsburg in 1530, after the formalities, the Germans’ very first words were:

Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting…

Given the foregoing, the 16th century Germans did not view themselves as establishing a “new” church. They viewed themselves as they did the EO churches and the churches at Nicea: rightful members of the universal Christian Church, none of whom submitted to Rome.

This is why I say: you are not going to convince a Lutheran he is wrong by telling him he thinks his church was founded in 1517 by Martin Luther.

 

[RonWI]

Genesis315:

But many don’t. Like how do non-denominational people get around that?

Presbyterians say that in the NT, “bishop” and “elder” are used interchangably. The people that govern the Presbyterian Church call themselves elders.

Every church has some way of govenring itself. Somebody is in charge. I am not sure the assignment of particular titles is mandated by the Bible. What is more important is that the leaders meet the requirements Paul set out in his letter to Titus:

6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer**(“Titus 1 NIV - Paul, a servant of God and an apostle - Bible Gateway”)] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quicktempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is selfcontrolled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

 

[RonWI]

Lumen Gentium:

Ron,

We can go on and on and on in circles with arguments like a ferris wheel, but with just one bottomline:

Any church can claim itself to be the first and the true church. No objectivity therefore can arise since anyone can make such claim. Neither a disclaimer can help because anyone can make such claim as well. The website, whostartedyourchurch.com doesn’t need a disclaimer (as what Catherine in this forum suggested) for the name of the website itself is already telling us that it’s bias and making a claim. The issue therefore is subjective. How can we, therefore, be objective? We go to the historical facts (past) and present day evidence and link those two. Do this and you will find the answer where all other churches broke from: The Roman Catholic Church. You might say what I am saying here is biased. But I already have gone through the historical facts and was able to link it to the Papacy.

How, then, can I convince a Lutheran he is wrong? By going back to 1517, the year his church broke away from the Catholic Church. I won’t let him trace back his church to ACTS, since I can also trace back my church to ACTS (we both can have the same claim, right?), I will let him trace his church to the time it broke away from the Catholic Church.

PAX

The distinction being made by the Lutheran is one between apostolic succession of the Roman bishop and the existence of the Church. I suspect that most any Lutheran (or any Christian for that matter) will readily concede that only the Catholic Church can establish apostolic succession of its leader to 33 AD.

You must recognize that in the eyes of any non-Catholic, the forgoing concession has nothing to do with the existence of the universal church, which (they will argue) is bigger than the Roman bishopric. They connect to the Apostolic Church, not through Rome, but outside of it. So, to non-Catholics, when they “broke away” from the Catholic Church is irrelevant.

(And you never will “convince” anybody of anything when you start with the attitude that you will not “let” them do something. What if a non-denominational said to you: I will not let you say the pope is the head of the church. How can I convince you otherwise?" )

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

I stated it in negation of which I can just revearse
but prolly will still sound the same.

**Even If he traces his church back to ACTS, I can also trace back **my church to ACTS (we both can have the same claim, right?). But I will rather point him in tracing back his church to the time it broke away from the Catholic Church.

That was a clumsy writing fault on my part.

PAX

RonWI:

(And you never will “convince” anybody of anything when you start with the attitude that you will not “let” them do something. What if a non-denominational said to you: I will not let you say the pope is the head of the church. How can I convince you otherwise?" )

 

[rschermer2]

Fr Ambrose:

We must remember that there are some Churches which are a little older than Rome… for example, there is the Church of Jerusalem where Saint James the Brother of the Lord was the first Bishop, and there is the Church of Antioch where Saint Peter was the founder of its See and where he lived before he travelled to Rome. These Churches still exist today, standing in a great stream of tradition flowing from the time of the holy Apostles.

Hello Fr. Abrose,

Do remember that the link given did not say the the Roman Catholic Chuch was started in 33 AD but the Catholic Church.

RS

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Going back…

It becomes irrelevant when they continue to deny the fact that they broke away from the Catholic Church of which they also deny it’s universality.

Now if what they argue about the universal church being bigger than the Roman Bishoperic or the Roman Catholic Church for that matter, then it simply is false because that argument can mean both churches, Lutheran and Roman Catholic, are under a bigger umbrella (the bigger universal church they can argue about) and so therefore, both churches has to agree with each other and be in unity of which IS NOT.

PAX

RonWI:

So, to non-Catholics, when they “broke away” from the Catholic Church is irrelevant.