What is the History of Your Church?

[Bran_Stark]

I hafta say, I find this particular Catholic tactic annoying and childish in the extreme. Does anyone seriously think that someone - a Lutheran, say - thinks to himself “Hm, I think I’m going to join this religion founded by Martin Luther in 1517”? Of course not. There is absolutely no disagreement among us that in A.D. 33, or thereabouts, Jesus Christ founded the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that still exists today.

If I thought for one second that the denomination called the Roman Catholic Church - and it is a denomination although Catholics may deny that, just like some fundamentalist Protestants like to say Christianity isn’t a religion, but there’s no other words an impartial observer could use - was the only true Christian body, than I would join it. But I don’t. Obviously my denomination wasn’t founded 2,000 years ago - no more than the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark was founded 2,000 years ago. But both are part of the same Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

No, not a bit. the Schism between East and West bore little resemblance to the Reformatiuon. No new doctrine was created by either side.

Well, the OC doesn’t see it that way. I think they would say new doctrines were indeed part of the cause, continued after the break, and probably caused the Reformation.

In fact, I think you could make a good argument that some Reformation ideas, like justification by faith, were an attempt to head back in an Orthodox direction.

 

[greggy53]

I hafta say, I find this particular Catholic tactic annoying and childish in the extreme. Does anyone seriously think that someone - a Lutheran, say - thinks to himself “Hm, I think I’m going to join this religion founded by Martin Luther in 1517”? Of course not. There is absolutely no disagreement among us that in A.D. 33, or thereabouts, Jesus Christ founded the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that still exists today.

If I thought for one second that the denomination called the Roman Catholic Church - and it is a denomination although Catholics may deny that, just like some fundamentalist Protestants like to say Christianity isn’t a religion, but there’s no other words an impartial observer could use - was the only true Christian body, than I would join it. But I don’t. Obviously my denomination wasn’t founded 2,000 years ago - no more than the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark was founded 2,000 years ago. But both are part of the same Church.

It all depends on your definition of 'Church" the Protestant needs their definition in order to justify their existence.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I hafta say, I find this particular Catholic tactic annoying and childish in the extreme.

The comparison that sticks in my mind would be if the United Methodist (it works better before the name change when they were just Methodist) were to claim "We are the true descendents of Wesley (presumably because they keep the original name) and the rest of you fellows (Free Methodists, Wesleyans, African-American Methodists) are not (nah-nah-nah).

Maybe I am too much object oriented, but I was taught that when an entity divides into two entities…that both inherit from the original parent. I believe with all my heart this is what occurred both with the Wesleyan Methodists and the apostolic church.

 

[Eutychus123]

Henry VIII did not found the Church of England. It already existed when Augustine visited England

 

[greggy53]

Henry VIII did not found the Church of England. It already existed when Augustine visited England

Henry broke with the Catholic Church.(St Augustine was Catholic) He butchered any clergy that would’nt go along with his apostacy. The martyr St Thomas Moore comes to mind. He made himself the head of the Church. While his daughter Elizabeth made most of the changes Henry started the ball rolling and it continues to go down hill today.

 

[Eutychus123]

Henry broke with the Catholic Church.(St Augustine was Catholic) He butchered any clergy that would’nt go along with his apostacy. The martyr St Thomas Moore comes to mind. He made himself the head of the Church. While his daughter Elizabeth made most of the changes Henry started the ball rolling and it continues to go down hill today.

Yes, Henry did break with Rome, In the interests of hirstorical accuracy, it is important to recognize the roles of his son and daughters when they ascended the throne.

You must have meant Thomas More, not Thomas Moore.

I would trace the origins of the English Reformation to John Wycliffe.

 

[greggy53]

Yes, Henry did break with Rome, In the interests of hirstorical accuracy, it is important to recognize the roles of his son and daughters when they ascended the throne.

You must have meant Thomas More, not Thomas Moore.

I would trace the origins of the English Reformation to John Wycliffe.

I believe I did mention his daughter Elizabeth’s role in the affair. I must have confused the spelling with that of the Irish poet, but I did not confuse the man, St Thomas More who was martyred by the English tyrant HenryVIII. From what I have read the so- called reformation had it’s roots in several heresies that spread through out Europe.

 

[Eutychus123]

I believe I did mention his daughter Elizabeth’s role in the affair. I must have confused the spelling with that of the Irish poet, but I did not confuse the man, St Thomas More who was martyred by the English tyrant HenryVIII. From what I have read the so- called reformation had it’s roots in several heresies that spread through out Europe.

I wasn’t defending Henry. His recored speaks for itself.
If Thomas More as portrayed in “Man for All Seasons” is accurate, he was a great man.

I was using Augustine to establish a point in time, (one that I could come up with quickly.)

Heresies of the English Reformation? A bit off of this topic. Maybe we need another thread?

 

[Returning_Home]

Given the fact that Joseph Smith had a 0% prophetic accuracy rate, I’m frankly offended that Mormonism would be included in this thread as a legitimate part of Christianity.

 

[Bluegoat]

Given the fact that Joseph Smith had a 0% prophetic accuracy rate, I’m frankly offended that Mormonism would be included in this thread as a legitimate part of Christianity.

Well, what is the likelihood of that? Even that octopus has a better record. Perhaps his oor accuracy rate proves that he was the real deal?

 

[Returning_Home]

Well, what is the likelihood of that? Even that octopus has a better record. Perhaps his oor accuracy rate proves that he was the real deal?

The octopus! That’s an awesome comparison!

I have a book on the prophecies of Joseph Smith and it’s all predicated on the BOM being correct. Once you take that out of the equation, however, the entire thing falls apart. I can show that the BOM contains dozens of examples of the New Testament, and not just the New Testament, but the KJV New Testament. What does that mean? It means that Nephi and Lehi used what we now find in our Bible as part of their regular speech some 2,200 years before the book was first published!

Now that’s amazing!

 

[catholicarchie]

The octopus! That’s an awesome comparison!

I have a book on the prophecies of Joseph Smith and it’s all predicated on the BOM being correct. Once you take that out of the equation, however, the entire thing falls apart. I can show that the BOM contains dozens of examples of the New Testament, and not just the New Testament, but the KJV New Testament. What does that mean? It means that Nephi and Lehi used what we now find in our Bible as part of their regular speech some 2,200 years before the book was first published!

Now that’s amazing!

they spoke Jacobean English!
woah!

 

[cheese_sdc]

Well, I’m a Unitarian Universalist, and they were formed in the 1960’s when the Unitarians and the Universalists merged into one organization. The particular church I go to is the Baton Rouge UU church which formed in the 1950’s as a Unitarian congregation.

 

[Returning_Home]

they spoke Jacobean English!
woah!

That’s pretty much the endd result here; the fictional Nephites spoke Hebrew, but wrote their records in “Deformed Egyptian,” and, when translated into English, became Jacobean English.

What sense does that make?

Is that Elizabethan or Jacobean English? I’ve always called it the former; am I wrong there?

 

[stephe1987]

What happened to the Church founded by Christ upon Saint Peter? If you broke away from the Church and deny Peter’s successor (Benedict XVI), then who is the true Pope? Without a leader, how can you be sure you’re interpreting scripture correctly? New denominations form constantly from private interpretations of scripture. And since these interpretations contradict one another, they cannot all be true.

 

[greggy53]

What happened to the Church founded by Christ upon Saint Peter? If you broke away from the Church and deny Peter’s successor (Benedict XVI), then who is the true Pope? Without a leader, how can you be sure you’re interpreting scripture correctly? New denominations form constantly from private interpretations of scripture. And since these interpretations contradict one another, they cannot all be true.

These are very important questins, questions that so far as I have seen haven’t been answered well by our Protestant brothers.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I hafta say, I find this particular Catholic tactic annoying and childish in the extreme. Does anyone seriously think that someone - a Lutheran, say - thinks to himself “Hm, I think I’m going to join this religion founded by Martin Luther in 1517”? Of course not. There is absolutely no disagreement among us that in A.D. 33, or thereabouts, Jesus Christ founded the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that still exists today.

If I thought for one second that the denomination called the Roman Catholic Church - and it is a denomination although Catholics may deny that, just like some fundamentalist Protestants like to say Christianity isn’t a religion, but there’s no other words an impartial observer could use - was the only true Christian body, than I would join it. But I don’t. Obviously my denomination wasn’t founded 2,000 years ago - no more than the Catholic Archdiocese of Newark was founded 2,000 years ago. But both are part of the same Church.

A “denomination” de-nominates. This means to break away from an original named entity and to give oneself a different name. In religious context, it means a sub-species of the original.

All organizations calling themselves “Christian” have ultimately “de-nominated” from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Mother Church of all Christendom, founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago. Christ founded only one Church. She is the nomination (the named Church) from which all other so-called “churches” de-nominated.

The United Church of Christ, to which you adhere, was founded on July 8, 1959, at Oberlin, Ohio, a merger of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, themselves having split from earlier splits, and so on, which ultimately split from the Catholic Church (Source: Handbook of Denominations in the United States). You do not believe what the Apostles taught and the first Christians believed and in no sense can be considered a continuation or branch or expression of the original.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Newark is simply an organic branch of the original Catholic Church, in the same way the Newark branch of the Bank of America is an organic extension of the same bank, under the same management and rules of operation as all Banks of America. Branches of Wells Fargo are not the same bank: their business plan, management, rules of operation, etc., are different. The fact that they both function as banks ends the similarity. And the United Church of Christ is not a “church” no matter what it calls itself. At best, it is a 20th century ecclesial community.

The Catholic Church is “the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” 1 Tim 3:15. Are all these thousands of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations teaching one “truth”? Uh uh.

I find this Protestant tactic of claiming to be part of the original Church annoying and ignorant (means ‘not knowing’) in the extreme.

Jim Dandy, former Protestant

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Well, the OC doesn’t see it that way. I think they would say new doctrines were indeed part of the cause, continued after the break, and probably caused the Reformation.

In fact, I think you could make a good argument that some Reformation ideas, like justification by faith, were an attempt to head back in an Orthodox direction.

According to Martin Luther, justification by faith (alone) was “knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the [monastery] tower” A World Lit Only by Fire, William Manchester.

 

[Bluegoat]

According to Martin Luther, justification by faith (alone) was “knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the [monastery] tower” A World Lit Only by Fire, William Manchester.

I’m not sure what your point is? I’m pretty sure theologians get their ideas in all kinds of weird places. I decided to become a Christian while peeling parsnips. We live in the body, there is no way around that.