Other Christians

[benhur]

Hi CM,

All those things are true of course, but in my experience, many Protestants would agree with all of those ‘other’ Protestants groups having been founded in some place by some historical figure. As for THEIR Protestant ‘group’, well – THAT was founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD. This in spite of the fact that nobody had ever heard of their group, and for the most part, their doctrinal beliefs, UNTIL the dates you listed above.

Where it really gets ‘revealing’ though is when you ask for the specifics about Christ founding their denomination. Did Christ come back to earth and visit (for example) 16th century Germany to found the Lutheran denomination?

When you ask how they know that Christ founded their denomination but did not found the ‘other’ Protestant denominations is when it gets interesting.

God Bless You CM, Topper

Holy is as holy does. Universal (catholic) is as universal does A Gumperism. Don’t know of any major denomination that wants to be different than what the early church was like, or that is not apostolic, holy or operating in universal truths. It is a double edged sword (that long list of churches/founders). One edge indeed may be human frailty (pride,error etc) of those founders but the other edge may be the Church frailty (pride, error etc) from which they sprang/broke from. The counter reformation certainly did some reforming to attest to that.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Because I once was Catholic, I used to think much the same as y’all do.

However, as I looked at the facts harder, I started to realize something. The history of the Catholic church isn’t one of doctrinal unity. All the different councils point to this. And even then, the fact that so many heresies existed gives lie to that idea.

I started to think that, like groundhogs, there were currents of differing ideas about Christianity, under the manicured golf course of Catholicism. Were and when they stuck their heads up, they were noticed by the official church and suppressed.

But they just went back to hiding until the Reformation made it a little safer to come out.

And yes, I just compared Catholic doctrinal heresies to the movie Candyshack. Because just like in Caddyshack, the gopher wins.

 

[adf417]

Because I once was Catholic, I used to think much the same as y’all do.

How do we think?

However, as I looked at the facts harder, I started to realize something. The history of the Catholic church isn’t one of doctrinal unity. All the different councils point to this. And even then, the fact that so many heresies existed gives lie to that idea.

Are you suggesting that doctrinal unity should look different? Are you suggesting the different belief in all heresies should not be considered heresies and we should "just all get along and believe what ever anyone comes up with, say for instance we should believe Jesus is divine and also not divine? How is this done?

I started to think that, like groundhogs, there were currents of differing ideas about Christianity, under the manicured golf course of Catholicism. Were and when they stuck their heads up, they were noticed by the official church and suppressed.

But they just went back to hiding until the Reformation made it a little safer to come out.

And yes, I just compared Catholic doctrinal heresies to the movie Candyshack. Because just like in Caddyshack, the gopher wins.

Not my top ten list of movies but I’m open to reasonable analogy and I don’t get it. Maybe I need to go back and watch the movie. Or maybe this somehow answers the first question of “how we think” Hmmmm

Peace!!!

 

[cheese_sdc]

How do we think?

Good point, I apologize.

My own view of Christian history was this: Christ founded the Catholic Church. There was no other institution in existence and there always was a clear doctrinal highway (if I may make that analogy). While their may be forks and turns off of this One True Doctrinal highway, the Catholic Church always pointed to the correct way. Once an issue was decided, there was no more disagreement and every Christian, everywhere, fell into step with Rome at that time.

In discussions with Protestants, they kept bringing up an underground church or the free church movement. Like many others, I’d just smile politely and ask “Where are your documents? No documents, no proof - your Church didn’t exist until Martin Luther’s time.”

But. As I reflected, I started to realize that the history of Christianity may be more complex than I realized. I considered the fact that the always were (and are) heresies popping up all over. Arianism, Adoptionism, Gnostics, Cathars, Bogomils, etc.

I started to realize that a council or edit doesn’t end a heresy. Those people still believed what they believed, they just went underground with it. Until it was safe to emerge again - The Reformation.

When I was trying to find something to illustrate this concept, I first thought of gophers under a lawn, which led me to Caddyshack. It’s not a great analogy, admittedly.

But my sense of humor likes it.

 

[Taurks]

But. As I reflected, I started to realize that the history of Christianity may be more complex than I realized. I considered the fact that the always were (and are) heresies popping up all over. Arianism, Adoptionism, Gnostics, Cathars, Bogomils, etc.

I started to realize that a council or edit doesn’t end a heresy. Those people still believed what they believed, they just went underground with it. Until it was safe to emerge again - The Reformation.

It’s interesting - I agree that there were always heresies. Which of course we should expect - people will always have the ability to believe what they want, even when that thing is false. It is true that a council does not “end” a heresy - to do so, it’d have to make people unable to believe a certain way, which is impossible. But the councils are helpful to affirm what the teaching of the Church is, especially when one of these errant beliefs (like Arianism) comes along and says otherwise.

It’s interesting what you say about the Reformation. You’re right that many old heresies resurfaced under new forms - as far as I see though that could just mean they were rekindled or reinvented instead of having stayed underground for hundreds of years, maybe I’m missing the point though

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are reproved, may be made manifest among you.

 

[benhur]

Good point, I apologize.

My own view of Christian history was this: Christ founded the Catholic Church. There was no other institution in existence and there always was a clear doctrinal highway (if I may make that analogy). While their may be forks and turns off of this One True Doctrinal highway, the Catholic Church always pointed to the correct way. Once an issue was decided, there was no more disagreement and every Christian, everywhere, fell into step with Rome at that time.

In discussions with Protestants, they kept bringing up an underground church or the free church movement. Like many others, I’d just smile politely and ask “Where are your documents? No documents, no proof - your Church didn’t exist until Martin Luther’s time.”

But. As I reflected, I started to realize that the history of Christianity may be more complex than I realized. I considered the fact that the always were (and are) heresies popping up all over. Arianism, Adoptionism, Gnostics, Cathars, Bogomils, etc.

I started to realize that a council or edit doesn’t end a heresy. Those people still believed what they believed, they just went underground with it. Until it was safe to emerge again - The Reformation.

When I was trying to find something to illustrate this concept, I first thought of gophers under a lawn, which led me to Caddyshack. It’s not a great analogy, admittedly.

But my sense of humor likes it.

Pretty good. I get it. I would add that some things that were not heresy (from protestant sense) went underground also. That is, the stuff you list above we all disagree with and would be united in calling heresy. But things like consubstantiation or symbolic eucharist, or believer in only the priesthood of all, no pope, no praying to saints,indulgences. or consenting baptism only or confess to God or offended folk only, or stricter adherence to scripture-a type of solo scriptura, or having married pastors were things practiced thru out time, but under much persecution and in certain areas only. A few of these groups unfortunately believed in or practice some stuff we all wouldn’t like but they certainly had some things right.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

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.

I like how you missed out the Eastern Orthodox in this list, always a trouble dating when they began.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, that’s obviously a Catholic point of view. Here is some of the history. Christianity existed for 300 years as often persecuted but increasingly recognized as an accepted religion. During this time, church doctrine and hierarchy was developing with bishops and councils becoming quite prominent. Christianity developed slightly different patterns and traditions based on geography, with churches in the Eastern (Greek speaking) Roman Empire being somewhat different than churches in the Western (Latin speaking) Empire.

On February 27, 380, the Roman Emperor issued the Edict of Thessalonica. This edict required all subjects of Rome to profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria–i.e. profess the Nicene Creed (in which the Council of Nicaea in 325 had articulated and affirmed a robust Trinitarian theology to fend off the Arian heresy). Those who obeyed this decree were given the right to call themselves Catholic Christians, but everyone else was deemed heretics.

As the Roman Empire in the West crumbled, tensions began to develop between the East and the West–the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope. Eventually, the rift became permanent and we get the first major division in Christianity–the (Latin) Church of the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church (which was shaped by the traditions of the Greek Church but today obviously incorporates many different languages).

Then in the sixteenth century, large numbers of Western Christians revolt against the authority of the papacy. And the rest they say is history. The Lutherans, Anglicans, and Reformed (or Calvinists) grew out of this Protestant Reformation. Other groups like the Anabaptists, Puritans, Separatists, and Baptists wanted to go further and “reform” the Protestant Churches even further. They were hated by everybody.

Protestant churches continued to divide. There were many schisms and isms created throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The process continues even in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Aaahhhh…not all Catholics believe every single denomination broke off the CC. Many denominations branched off other existing denomination.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually there were splits after the Council of Ephesus (Assyrian Church of the East) and the Council of Chalcedon (Oriental Orthodox). While they are not that numerous now they were much more significant before the lands where they were fell to Islam.

Just for clarification; Make no mistake about it, the list you provided are True Catholics including the Nestorians and others who introduced heretical teachings in and out of the apostolic teachings. What you label as a split is not the same as with the 16th century protestant reformation, who not only changed the apostolic faith, but rejected most the apostolic Sacred Tradition handed down from the original apostles.

As far as the Orthodox are concerned they remain Catholic no matter what they say.

The Orthodox position is schism, a tear if you will, is not the same as the protestants who broke away from Catholicism.

There is no such thing as a divided Catholic Church in the mystical body of Jesus Christ we all remain as one “Sacramentally” both in heaven and earth.

NO man or Church authority ever has the power to separate or divide what God has joined together. Except man reject or move away from God of his/her own freewill. This freewill of Protestantism of it’s founding Father’s who were Catholic did do.

The schism not separation or division of faith, relates to authority at the bottom line, all other matters are secondary. When the divine authority is realized, all other schismatic matters will correct themselves.

Peace be with you

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Good point, I apologize.

My own view of Christian history was this: Christ founded the Catholic Church. There was no other institution in existence and there always was a clear doctrinal highway (if I may make that analogy). While their may be forks and turns off of this One True Doctrinal highway, the Catholic Church always pointed to the correct way. Once an issue was decided, there was no more disagreement and every Christian, everywhere, fell into step with Rome at that time.

In discussions with Protestants, they kept bringing up an underground church or the free church movement. Like many others, I’d just smile politely and ask “Where are your documents? No documents, no proof - your Church didn’t exist until Martin Luther’s time.”

But. As I reflected, I started to realize that the history of Christianity may be more complex than I realized. I considered the fact that the always were (and are) heresies popping up all over. Arianism, Adoptionism, Gnostics, Cathars, Bogomils, etc.

I started to realize that a council or edit doesn’t end a heresy. Those people still believed what they believed, they just went underground with it. Until it was safe to emerge again - The Reformation.

When I was trying to find something to illustrate this concept, I first thought of gophers under a lawn, which led me to Caddyshack. It’s not a great analogy, admittedly.

But my sense of humor likes it.

A council doesn’t end a heresy but it defines what is a heresy and what is acceptable for the Church to believe. If the early Church councils didn’t exist, then millions of Christians would be immensely confused on worship and would be caught up in salvation-threatening beliefs such as Arianism. The point of the council is to define what the Church believes, and indeed it has been consistent. You haven’t seen the Church prior to the Reformation, for instance, adopt Arianism officially and then subsequently reject it. If that did indeed occur, you would have a strong argument, but just the opposite happened. And I don’t believe the Catholic Church (nor the Orthodox, for that matter) had ever presented it as heresies simply going away, but that instead they were identified for what they are and those supporters who didn’t change their theology were removed from the life of the Church. But it certainly doesn’t disprove doctrinal unity and consistency.

It is true that Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin were heavily influenced by certain works they picked out of Ancient Fathers, but that is certainly not uniform in scope. Holy Communion, for instance, was largely accepted among all Christians and the official Church as involving the real physical and divine presence of Jesus Christ. John Calvin and Zwingli turned that on its head while Luther remained faithful to that concept.

I had the opposite experience you did - I assumed that what my particular theology (Pentecostalism) existed since the very beginning, and that the “Church” was in reality a mass of different groups that eventually became corrupted and morphed into the Roman Catholic Church, leading to the Reformation in 1517. But further study lead me to instead see that the Church, despite its heresies, was quite firm on the faith it received from the Apostles, and that its claims on the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession, and the authority of the Church have never altered.

I’d like to add that reading the New Testament, I (personally) get the impression that the epistles of Paul imply that there should be doctrinal unity among the churches and that is why he is so fervent in attempting to correct the practices of for example, the Corinthians. I don’t think that it’s coincidental that this practice is then also picked up by the Patriarchs of the major sees - Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria - with regards to churches within their respective jurisdictions.