How Old Is Your Church?

EWTN ^ | not given | EWTN

[Cronos]

This list is incomplete. What about Unitarian Universalists, Orthodux Presbyterians, Baptist Presbyterians, American Presbyterians, the Western Branch of the PresbyLutheran Reformed Church?

[Salvation]

There’s a second list in there somewhere that is more complete. But you are correct on its incompleteness.

[Cronos]

It’s just there are so many sects, sub-sects and sub-sub-sub-sects of Protestantism that it gets difficult to trace.

[Cronos]

And what is the Eastern Orthodox Church which was founded at least contemporaneously, if not earlier, than the Roman Church ?

Orthodox like Orientals or Assyrians are part of the One Catholic and Apostolic CHurch and hence are part of the "If you are 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. "

Saint Paul the Apostle founded the Eastern Orthodox Church, whereas Saint Peter founded the Catholic Church.

Incorrect. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a group of many Churches as is the Catholic Church. The Patriarchate of Antioch was also founded by St. Peter, as was Rome, while Alexandria was founded by the Apostle St. Mark the Evangelist. There are Orthodox, Oriental and Catholic Patriarchates of Antioch as of Jerusalem.

The Orthodox Church, like the Oriental and Catholic are groups of Churches that were founded by the Apostles (plural) and trace themselves directly back to Christ. Ditto for the Assyrian Church which traces itself back to St. Thomas and St. Barnabus (in India/Syria and Parthia/Iran/China respectively).

All 4 are part of the One CAtholic and Apostolic Church, all are equally venerable in age and all 4 trace themselves back directly through the Apostles to Christ Himself.

[Belteshazzar]

This is so ridiculous. The church began, as noted in Genesis 4, when “men began to call on the name of the LORD.” Their trust was grounded in the Seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head. In other words, they confessed the Messiah/Christ who was to come into the world in order to be crucified for them (having His heel crushed), but in so doing destroy the Serpent, i.e., Satan (whose head would be crushed). This is the church of all the faithful, all the sons and daughters of Abraham, whether before the incarnation or after. They, like their father Abraham, longed to see Messiah’s day, and they saw it and were glad. (John 8:56) This is the church represented by Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. This is the only church that will stand, as it always has, until the end of the world.

So, if you want to claim that your church was founded only in 33 A.D., it is a johnny-come-(very)lately church.

[Theo]

You really are serving Satan by trying to introduce division among those who follow Christ. Examine your motives. Are you promoting Christ by publishing this article? Or are you promoting your church?

I challenge you to think of Christ. Jesus Christ, Savior of the world, who established His church in Jerusalem and throughout the world among those who adhere to Him.

You really are treading dangerous ground by facilitating division among those who follow Christ. And you demean the term “salvation” by promoting Rome above Christ.

[Theo]

“Welcome home”? No, “home” is found in Christ. Not in Rome.

May Rome decrease and Christ increase. John the Baptist understood this. May you understand this.

[Salvation]

Christ is the center of every Catholic Mass, regardless if it is a Latin Rite (Rome, as you say) or another rite.

I believe you know that.

Not only the Liturgy of the Word — the words of the Old Testament, a Psalm and words of Christ from a Gospel. On Sundays a Readings from a New Testament author is also added.

Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist takes place — the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ through the words, hands and actions of the priest through the Holy Spirit.

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass to witness this? I think you would be impressed.

[Salvation]

How can you read my mind and say that I am being divisive? These are the facts — the dates of the establishment of different branches of Catholic, Christian and non-Christian Churches......I’m not understanding your accusation......Is it a personal attack against me or against the Catholic Church?

[Theo]

My church traces its lineage back to Christ. I’m a member of a Christian church, with Christ as its head. Your insistence the Roman Catholic Church is the only legitimate one is pure arrogance, and needlessly insulting to those who follow Christ, the founder of His church, His bride, which consists of all those who’ve been adopted into His family.

May Christ increase. Christ, not Rome. Christ, and not my particular denomination either. Let’s promote Christ, rather than demean someone’s fellowship affiliation.

Throughout history God has brought out a remnant from among His people. The Reformation was a recent calling of His, to bring His beloved out from among an entity gone apostate.

[Theo]

My main point is not to say that you are not a Christian. My main point is not to say that Christ is not proclaimed an exalted during your Mass. My main point is that its bigotry to say that the congregation of which I’m a part is not Christian, that Christ is not our head, that it’s part of an illegitimate church.

This arrogant sentiment is captured well in big’ol_freeper’s comment 187, when he writes that I reject Christ because I don’t submit to Rome. No, I embrace Christ and His word. And I am a member of the church He founded: The fellowship of believers, His bride, which finds its home not in Rome but in Heaven.

Do you know what “denomination” I belong to? No, you don’t. Because I affirm and promote Jesus, not my particular fellowship. May you do the same.

[big'ol_freeper]

RE: This arrogant sentiment is captured well in big’ol_freeper’s comment 187

I believe you will find that carrying arguments from one thread to another is verboten in the religion forum. I've made no posts on this thread (until now).

[Theo]

I should have included the link to your comment:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2470878/posts?page=187#187

I apologize for not including that.

[big'ol_freeper]

No need to apologize for not posting a link. You are most welcome to your point of view. That wasn’t the point.

The point was that, by the rules of engagement for the forum, arguments can’t be brought from one thread to another.

The reasoning behind that is to avoid folks stalking each other from thread to thread carrying on a personal argument.

It would have been perfectly appropriate to post your comment on the original thread where I made my post 187. Not that I agree, but there is nothing wrong with that comment.

[Theo]

I have no argument with you; I am not “arguing.” I’m simply referencing something you wrote that I felt was relevant to the discussion at hand. Don’t take that as starting, or continuing, an “argument.” It’s not.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not carry the same debate from thread to thread.

[Theo]

I’ve been in FR for a dozen years, and never knew that I was forbidden from referencing something relevant from another thread. I’ve seen others do it for years; I figured it was fine to do it here. I’ll do my best to obey.

[Religion Moderator]

The issue is not the referring to a post on another thread. It is arguing against that post on a new thread.

[terycarl]

Glad to know my salvation is based on my relationship with Christ, not membership in a particular church.

doesn't work that way....if you believe in Christ, then you follow His instructions....very plain and very easy to understand. Making up your own rules as you go along doesn't count!!!