The Universal Church

[theculturewarrior]

Hello:

I posted this once before, but I don't think anybody replied. I'm thinking that in retrospect maybe I stated my argument poorly.

The Church is often criticized by Evangelicals for venerating Mary, for believing that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, for reciting prayers and promoting their recitation and for requiring confession of sins to a priest. Many Evangelicals make the argument that the Early Church was a sola scriptura type Church along the lines of modern Evangelicalism.

That doesn't wash with my knowledge of history.

The Early Fathers, including St. Justin and St. Ignatius describe a Church with sacraments and Holy Orders, with the Eucharist at the Center. The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox celebrate [b]Seven Sacraments, believe that the Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of the Lord, have confession, venerate Mary and the Saints, recite prayers, baptize infants, and look for precedence in the uniform consensus of the Fathers.[/b]

The Oriental Orthodox separated from the Universal Church at about 450 AD and are said to have changed very little ever since. The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church separated in 1054 and the they are said to have changed very little since.

It would seem that the articles of Faith listed in bold belonged to the Universal Church.

I've heard the argument that the Early Church apostasized and that Christianity wasn't present until the reformation (or was it until the Book of Mormon was "translated")? That doesn't even seem to wash from a Sola Scriptura POV.

What gives? Where's the history?

[theculturewarrior]

I should also say they have the so called "extra books" in their bibles.

[theculturewarrior]

bump.

[Archangel]

The story I've heard is that "original" Christians went into hiding until the Reformation.

[Q the Ninja]

I can tell you why the Orthodox won't change. They think that the East and the West must be together, both lungs must breathe in unison, for new doctrine/dogma to be added.

[theculturewarrior]

Catholics and Orthodox would probably both agree that there are no new dogmas. Catholics would differ in that we believe that there are dogmas that haven't been promulgated yet, and that the Pope has the authority to do so.

But that's besides the point. Regarding the Evangelicals, where's the history?

[MichaelFilo]

History would point to the Catholic Church. Even Eastern churches that went into schism have trickled back in. I belong to one that is a late commer. The thing is the Eastern Churches realize the need for the papacy and the split was completley political in most cases to begin with, mostly because of Muslim expansion that hindered the communications, although I'm sure there were arguements over what is to be believed. Whatever the case, the history is in the Church's favor and the Evangilicals can trace their roots ( The pentecostal churches) In the Methodist church. And those pentacostals first took up the name in 1911 (as it was the first real split in dogma and doctrine from Methodism). Evangelicals really come from one or more brands of Christianity and so I just lump them with pentacostals, and the two tend to be applicable for both groups.

God bless,
Mikey

[theculturewarrior]

bump for history.

[theculturewarrior]

bump for any response. Come on, protestants. It's lonely in this thread.

[theculturewarrior]

bump

[theculturewarrior]

bump.

[theculturewarrior]

bump.

[theculturewarrior]

bump. -_-

[God Conquers]

I just don't think there's much to argue with it....

[theculturewarrior]

You mean, it's unequivocally true, or I haven't provided enough substance?

Mulls? Lumberjack?

[theculturewarrior]

Do protestants just not care?

[MichaelFilo]

From my experience, most don't.

God bless,
Mikey

[theculturewarrior]

I emailed Touchstone Magazine, and their editor, David Mills, responded. I won't post all of his email here, but I know David Mills is a Catholic and is exposed to a wide variety of ideas, because he is the editor of an ecumenical magazine, and also has a doctorate in Theology and was a theology professor.

He said that Evangelicals view themselves as the historic mainstream of Christianity, and that there history was a struggle to retain the Christian tradition and to keep it from the additions of Catholics and Orthodox. He said it is a "principled and plausible" position.

I'm not sure how much I would agree. Principled, no doubt. Perhaps it is plausible, but he said so little. I would need more to go by.

[theculturewarrior]

bump.

[N/A Gone]

often times they just dont care...or dont see a point in caring. There is no sense of urgency.