It would be Churches because we know that there were to begin with five:
One Christian Church with many local churches run by Bishops (as Bro Rich indicates) all in union with each other. This is the Catholic Church. The only Church.
Nonsense. You are speaking of one church. The question was what other churches were around “besides” the Catholic church. There was one church which was established by the apostles who were led by Peter whether he was in Rome at the time or not.
The American Catholic Church in Nevada is particularly sensitive to the voices of those who, having felt been called to Catholic ministry, have found their way blocked by sexism and blanket requirements of celibacy: We are therefore committed to the admission of woman, married and gay / lesbian persons to all ranks of the clergy!There’s no need to be confused. They are CINOs and NOT in communion in any way with us.
That sums it all up. Look at their teachings as shown in my first quote above. These are nothing more than non-Catholics using the name and liturgy. (and that last probably is ALL messed up!)
It was originally three and then the other two were elevated to the level of patriarch later. The Roman, Antiochian, and Alexandrian were the original patriarchs. The Jerusalem and Constantinople patriarchs came later.
Read their tenets of faith. They are pantheists and believe that they are all god. That site is really strange and I would say every single tenet of their faith is a heresy in itself. The scripture in their view, instead of being inspired by God was inspired by Vatican II. They mention Vatican II but reject all teachings of the Church. They are heretical.
BrianH said:
That is a silly claim that has no basis in history. The Catholic Churches and the Eastern Churches can all trace their bishops back to the apostles. Protestantism can do no such thing. To make this claim is to ignore history.
Quite the reverse. It’s historically demonstrable. The Protestant Reformers were members of the Catholic Church who very explicitly stated their attempt to reform the existing Catholic Church, not start something new.
Anglicans and some Lutherans can trace their bishops back to the apostles. Most of the other Reformation churches have a succession of presbyters (though in places it’s spotty–for instance, there’s no evidence that Calvin was ever ordained), and this includes Methodists as well.
You are descendants in that you came out of Catholicism. But the Church was never run from bottom up so that the lay people lead the bishops and told the bishops that they were heretics. The Church in every stage of its life was lead from the top down. I am sure you have read Ignatius’ epistles. He is very clear that those who do not follow the bishops are heretics and schismatics. Irenaeus shows the list of the Roman bishops from the apostles. Apostolicity was shown through the connection of the bishops with the apostles.
There is not one Lutheran bishop that can claim he has apostolic succession. Not one bishop followed Luther in his reformation. Luther was a priest, he was not a bishop. Priests have never held succession. The Church fathers never speak of the succession priests. In order for Lutherans to claim apostolicity they must have bishops that were ordained by bishops that have succession. Since Luther was only a priest and no bishop followed him they can not make this claim.
And that’s all I’m saying. You’re welcome to say that we are illegitimate descendants. Obviously we don’t see it that way.
That’s a false generalization. Bishops in the early Church were chosen by the people. Papal appointment of bishops is not an ancient practice–and the same is true of many aspects of modern RC polity. The Church wasn’t “bottom up” or “top down.” All members of the Church had different functions. Bishops had a huge amount of authority–but at the same time they were chosen by the people so there was some accountability.
Very true. In fact I’ve been rereading Ignatius recently. But the “bishops” Ignatius describes are the local leaders of the Church in a specific town. And other writers from the early Church–including, ironically, Clement of Rome, who was allegedly a Pope himself–don’t speak of one bishop but of several presbyters governing the Church. Hermas’s allegory *The Shepherd *speaks of Clement as the presbyter in charge of correspondence with other churches (though that could be another Clement, of course), rather than the sole bishop. Ignatius’s “monarchical” model apparently didn’t take over at Rome itself until the mid-second century. At least that’s the consensus of most scholars today, including Catholics. There was a lot more diversity in the early Church than you are acknowledging.
In Irenaeus’s definition apostolic succession is a matter of succession of office in a specific see. No American bishop would have apostolic succession in Irenaeus’s definition (though of course he thinks that communion with the apostolic sees, especially Rome, is very important).
Well, I think that’s bunk. I don’t think the matters debated in the Reformation were of primary importance, though that’s not to say that they were trivial. I think both sides continued to believe the central teachings of Christianity.
Not in Germany–I was talking about Scandinavia.
You’re wrong. Jerome says that originally there was no distinction between bishops and presbyters, but that later on one presbyter was chosen to govern the others. There’s evidence that at times in Alexandria the presbyters elected the bishop and laid hands on him without any other bishop being involved (as among Methodists and many Lutherans today).
What are these ancient teachings that we rejected? I don’t dispute that there were some (the Reformers were not as close to the early Church as they taught), but there were others that we restored: communion in both kinds being one of the most obvious examples.
You are creating false history. Yes, they were chosen by the lay people at times and in certain places but this by no means put them under the control of the lay people. The union was held by the bishops. The lay people were bound to follow the bishop in all things. Read Ignatius’ epistles.