• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why so many denominations?

B

barryatlake

Guest
ebia, here is just part of the article on that subject===

in 1529 supporters of Queen Catherine still had the upper hand in Parliament. Nearly everyone opposed to the divorce believed that Henry’s desire for Anne would pass. Henry had discarded mistresses aplenty. Catherine wrote the pope telling him that if Henry were restored to her for a mere two months, she could make him forget Anne.
Knowing this, Catherine’s enemies—Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, and the Boleyn family—kept Catherine away from the King and introduced a new game plan: directly challenge the pope’s authority not only on the question of the divorce, but also his authority as head of the Church.
Their playbook was a tract called The Obedience of a Christian Man, written by a heretical priest named William Tyndale. Tyndale was a Cambridge student who, like Cranmer, fomented heresy at the White Horse Inn, a tavern in Cambridge nicknamed "little Germany" for the budding heretics who gathered there.
Tyndale, like Luther (much of Tyndale’s work is Luther in English), argued that Scripture should be available to every man in his own tongue and that God spoke directly to any man through his prayerful consideration of Scripture. In Obedience of a Christian Man, Tyndale carried this argument into political life. Where once the princes of Europe acknowledged that their power to rule came from Christ through the pope, Tyndale argued that a king’s authority came directly from God.
Anne gave a copy of this book to Henry. Although Henry had earlier condemned the works of Tyndale, his vision was now clouded.
Scholars for Hire
More nevertheless was determined to save Henry from himself. There was reason to hope. Although the divorce effort had been underway for more than three years, Henry still sought the moral authority that would come with a favorable decision from Rome. In an effort to influence such a decision, Cranmer suggested that Henry obtain opinions on his divorce from scholars throughout Europe.
What Cranmer really meant, and what Henry did, was to pay for the opinions of what we would today call expert witnesses. While many of these hired guns supported Henry’s aims, at least one Italian rabbi, Jacob Rafael Yehiel Hayyim Peglione of Modena, concluded that Henry was married to Catherine in the eyes of God and that the marriage could not be dissolved.
The expert opinions carried no weight in Rome, so to get the pope’s attention, Henry, with a complicit Parliament, attacked the whole English clergy. For months Cromwell had been fomenting public opinion against the clergy with the tracts of Tyndale and other heretics. Now Cromwell suggested to Henry that since the clergy were obedient to Rome they were only "half citizens of the realm." Charged with praemunire, a kind of treason, the clergy were forced to pay Henry a sum of 100,000 pounds to purchase a pardon for the imagined offense and were forced to acknowledge Henry as the "protector and Supreme head of the Church in England." Bishop John Fisher attempted to salvage the bitter moment by seeing that the words, "so far as the law of Christ allows" were added, but the end was obviously near.
In 1532 Henry made a personal visit to Parliament and influenced the lawmakers to pass an edict forbidding English clergy to make their annates or "first fruits" payments to Rome, an important source of income for the Holy See. On the heels of that edict came the Submission of the Clergy, in which the clergy lost all right of legislation except through the king. The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham, prepared a stirring rejection of this suppression of Church authority, but he failed to deliver it in Parliament, prompting Bishop Fisher to tell More that the "fort had been betrayed even by those who should have defended it."
The Storm Breaks
The suppression of the clergy was the last straw for More. He told his king that he was "not equal to the work" and resigned his post. Keeping his opinion about the divorce to himself, save in private conversations with the king, More hoped to escape the gathering storm by retreating from public life to the quiet of his home in Chelsea. Even then it seemed possible: After More’s resignation, twice, and in the presence of Parliament, Henry praised More for his service as chancellor. But Henry’s handlers could not leave More alone.
A man with More’s profound understanding of the law and his reputation for honorable conduct could not be allowed to be silent. His was a silence heard throughout Europe, and it was silence that encouraged others to resist the king’s divorce and ever-expanding power.
Then Anne got pregnant and the storm broke with fury. Henry married her in secret. She bore a child, Elizabeth. Archbishop Cranmer declared Henry’s first marriage null. He had no power to do so, but on the day that he was made Archbishop of Canterbury he made a private oath not to submit to the authority of the pope. Anne was crowned queen. Pope Clement finally condemned the divorce.
More had refused to attend the wedding. But the greater matter was More’s refusal to swear to the Act of Succession which declared Catherine’s daughter, Mary, a bastard and the issue of Henry and Anne heirs to the throne. More did not object to Parliament ruling on the succession of the throne, but he refused to take the oath because the Act rejected papal authority. In February 1534, Henry requested More’s indictment on charges of treason. The House of Lords refused three times. He was interrogated repeatedly by Cromwell, Cranmer, and the new chancellor, Lord Audley, who were unsuccessful in their attempts to bribe him, ensnare him, and link him with known traitors. Henry then cut off More’s salary and his family was thrust into poverty. On April 13, 1534, More was taken to Lambeth Castle and, in the company of other nobles and clerics, asked to swear to the Act of Succession. He refused. Having been convicted of no crime and without any legal grounds for arrest, he was confined to the Tower of London.
His trial was held on July 1, 1535. He was convicted on the basis of the perjured testimony of Richard Rich. "In good faith, Master Rich," More said, "I am sorrier for your perjury than for my own peril."
Death and Destruction
On July 6, 1535, St. Thomas More was martyred for his defense of the sanctity of Christian marriage and his defense of the authority of the Vicar of Christ. He was beatified by Leo XIII in 1886 and canonized on the fourth centenary of his death by Pius XI.
In the spring of 1536, less than a year after More’s death, Queen Catherine was dead, the divorce affair over, and Anne Boleyn was not far from the scaffold herself, though only Henry knew it.
Thus it was that that Henry VIII brought sorrow to merry old England.
The brutal suppression of the monasteries would soon follow. More than one thousand monasteries and convents were destroyed and monks and nuns turned out into the street to find, in Cromwell’s words, "real work." In destroying them, Henry introduced the modern welfare state. Once, the poor were cared for in dignity and charity by men and women religious. Now they were dependent on the state. Anyone with a passing familiarity with public housing projects can appreciate this bitter fruit of the Protestant rebellion in England.
Indeed, because England was destined for "a unique good fortune in the leadership of the world it is through its effect in England that the Reformation survives today as a world force," (Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Reformation, 161) and the worst manifestations of it, from Christendom’s first state-sanctioned regicide, to the ugliness of industrialization, to the treatment of indigenous peoples, including American Indians, are this so-called Reformation’s darker legacy. With the exception of literature, English intellectual life declined, and even within English literature, it is the Catholics—Shakespeare, Dryden, Chesterton—who shine. English philosophers are more political theorists, and their ideas sparked the errors of the Enlightenment. The suppression of the Church in England was the dress rehearsal for the French Revolution, the Italian Risorgimento, the Mexican Revolution, and the Spanish Civil War. Henry VIII’s divorce is the reason America is a Protestant country.
It is not fitting, however, for Christians to end with even a hint of despair. Thomas More prayed for the men who sent him to his death, saying that he hoped they would all share eternity together. Catholics, with such charitable and courageous advocates as Sts. Thomas More, John Fisher, Augustine of Canterbury, and all the English martyrs, have good cause to hope and pray for the unification of all Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
SIDEBARS
Quick Lesson in Canon Law

Canon Law acknowledges a number of impediments to marriage. The three dealing with family relationships are:
  • Consanguinity deals with the possibility of marriage between blood relatives. Nowadays, brothers and sisters and first cousins may not marry.
  • Affinity deals with the possibility of marriage between a person and the relatives of his or her spouse (presuming the bond with the spouse has ceased to exist, usually by death).
  • Public decency (some medieval authors called it quasi-affinity) deals with the possibility of marriage between one person and the relative of another with whom the first person has been engaged or has had an unconsummated marriage.
Both affinity and public decency were at issue in Henry’s divorce.
So far as affinity is concerned, Canon Law today forbids marriages between persons related by affinity in the direct line (that is parent to child.) So, if my wife dies, I can’t marry her mother, but I could marry her sister. Interestingly, the Church allows that such a second marriage (to my wife’s sister) might, in fact, benefit my children—that is, in the event of their mother’s death, the Church is open to the possibility that it could be better for my children to have their aunt, whom they know, as their new mother. In the sixteenth century, the impediments of affinity were more restrictive. A man could not marry his dead brother’s widow without a dispensation from this Canon Law.
The question is what kind of dispensation was required. Catherine testified that the marriage between her and Arthur had never been consummated. Henry accepted the testimony and later said that he found Catherine a virgin. Thus, a dispensation of quasi-affinity or public decency would have been sufficient. In other words, the first marriage was never consummated, but for the sake of public appearances, a dispensation to marry should be granted.
One more detail about affinity in the Canon Law tradition: Marriage is the consent of the partners to be conjugally united. If they are baptized, it is also a sacrament. Consummation expresses the intimate sense and purpose of the marital consent. Consequently, the Church held that any act of intercourse, whether conjugal or illicit (as in fornication or adultery), created a relation by affinity among the relatives of the persons involved. Thus, a man who fornicated with a woman was not free later to marry her sister. This restriction no longer exists in Canon Law, but it did in the sixteenth century.


Lady Anne Boleyn
"Lady" is the title that courtesy and history have bestowed on Anne, but to the Spanish ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, she was the king’s "concubine." To the common people of England, who loved Catherine, Anne was "the goggle-eyed" harlot and a "sorceress," names routinely flung at her when she appeared in public. Henry VIII had kept a string of mistresses, but Anne was not content to be another one of these. She wanted to be queen. The fact that there was already a queen in place was just a matter to be overcome. Anne was an unattractive creature. She had a wart and six fingers on one hand, and, according to contemporary accounts, a pronounced goiter. She was too skinny. She did possess, however, a pair of large, dark eyes and fantastic powers to seduce. Her father was Thomas Boleyn, first Earl of Wiltshire, a member of the new nobility created by wealth and ambition rather than blood and tradition. Anne took her formation as a lady in waiting in the notoriously anti-Catholic court of Marguerite of Navarre, sister to Francis I, king of France. At court, Anne and her older sister Mary would have reveled not only in the salacious writings of Marguerite but also in the heretical ideas so popular in that French court. When she returned to England in 1522, she was, in Chapuy’s words, "more Lutheran than Luther." Anne and her sister took positions as attendants to Queen Catherine. First Mary, and then Anne, sometime around the beginning of the year 1527, captured the king’s attention. Mary was content to be Henry’s concubine for a time. Anne had bigger plans.
Repugnant to the Laws of God
After being convicted, St. Thomas More had this to say about the Act of Parliament which made Henry VIII head of the church in England:
Inasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and his Holy Church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior Himself, personally present upon the earth, only to St. Peter and his successors, bishops of the same See, by special prerogative guaranteed, it is therefore in law among Christian men insufficient to charge any Christian man. (Gerard Wegemer, St. Thomas More: A Portrait in Courage, 215; cf. William Roper, Lives of St. Thomas More, 45)
A Defensione III.LXXVI.LXXVI
Christopher Check is Director of Development at Catholic Answers. A graduate of Rice University, for nearly two decades he served as vice president of The Rockford Institute. Before that he served for seven years as a field artillery officer in the Marine Corps, attaining the grade of captain....

more...
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
barryatlake said:
ebia, here is just part of the article on that subject=== in 1529 supporters of Queen Catherine still had the upper hand in Parliament. Nearly everyone opposed to the divorce believed that Henry's desire for Anne would pass. Henry had discarded mistresses aplenty. Catherine wrote the pope telling him that if Henry were restored to her for a mere two months, she could make him forget Anne. Knowing this, Catherine's enemies--Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, and the Boleyn family--kept Catherine away from the King and introduced a new game plan: directly challenge the pope's authority not only on the question of the divorce, but also his authority as head of the Church. Their playbook was a tract called The Obedience of a Christian Man, written by a heretical priest named William Tyndale. Tyndale was a Cambridge student who, like Cranmer, fomented heresy at the White Horse Inn, a tavern in Cambridge nicknamed "little Germany" for the budding heretics who gathered there. Tyndale, like Luther (much of Tyndale's work is Luther in English), argued that Scripture should be available to every man in his own tongue and that God spoke directly to any man through his prayerful consideration of Scripture. In Obedience of a Christian Man, Tyndale carried this argument into political life. Where once the princes of Europe acknowledged that their power to rule came from Christ through the pope, Tyndale argued that a king's authority came directly from God. Anne gave a copy of this book to Henry. Although Henry had earlier condemned the works of Tyndale, his vision was now clouded. Scholars for Hire More nevertheless was determined to save Henry from himself. There was reason to hope. Although the divorce effort had been underway for more than three years, Henry still sought the moral authority that would come with a favorable decision from Rome. In an effort to influence such a decision, Cranmer suggested that Henry obtain opinions on his divorce from scholars throughout Europe. What Cranmer really meant, and what Henry did, was to pay for the opinions of what we would today call expert witnesses. While many of these hired guns supported Henry's aims, at least one Italian rabbi, Jacob Rafael Yehiel Hayyim Peglione of Modena, concluded that Henry was married to Catherine in the eyes of God and that the marriage could not be dissolved. The expert opinions carried no weight in Rome, so to get the pope's attention, Henry, with a complicit Parliament, attacked the whole English clergy. For months Cromwell had been fomenting public opinion against the clergy with the tracts of Tyndale and other heretics. Now Cromwell suggested to Henry that since the clergy were obedient to Rome they were only "half citizens of the realm." Charged with praemunire, a kind of treason, the clergy were forced to pay Henry a sum of 100,000 pounds to purchase a pardon for the imagined offense and were forced to acknowledge Henry as the "protector and Supreme head of the Church in England." Bishop John Fisher attempted to salvage the bitter moment by seeing that the words, "so far as the law of Christ allows" were added, but the end was obviously near. In 1532 Henry made a personal visit to Parliament and influenced the lawmakers to pass an edict forbidding English clergy to make their annates or "first fruits" payments to Rome, an important source of income for the Holy See. On the heels of that edict came the Submission of the Clergy, in which the clergy lost all right of legislation except through the king. The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham, prepared a stirring rejection of this suppression of Church authority, but he failed to deliver it in Parliament, prompting Bishop Fisher to tell More that the "fort had been betrayed even by those who should have defended it." The Storm Breaks The suppression of the clergy was the last straw for More. He told his king that he was "not equal to the work" and resigned his post. Keeping his opinion about the divorce to himself, save in private conversations with the king, More hoped to escape the gathering storm by retreating from public life to the quiet of his home in Chelsea. Even then it seemed possible: After More's resignation, twice, and in the presence of Parliament, Henry praised More for his service as chancellor. But Henry's handlers could not leave More alone. A man with More's profound understanding of the law and his reputation for honorable conduct could not be allowed to be silent. His was a silence heard throughout Europe, and it was silence that encouraged others to resist the king's divorce and ever-expanding power. Then Anne got pregnant and the storm broke with fury. Henry married her in secret. She bore a child, Elizabeth. Archbishop Cranmer declared Henry's first marriage null. He had no power to do so, but on the day that he was made Archbishop of Canterbury he made a private oath not to submit to the authority of the pope. Anne was crowned queen. Pope Clement finally condemned the divorce. More had refused to attend the wedding. But the greater matter was More's refusal to swear to the Act of Succession which declared Catherine's daughter, Mary, a bastard and the issue of Henry and Anne heirs to the throne. More did not object to Parliament ruling on the succession of the throne, but he refused to take the oath because the Act rejected papal authority. In February 1534, Henry requested More's indictment on charges of treason. The House of Lords refused three times. He was interrogated repeatedly by Cromwell, Cranmer, and the new chancellor, Lord Audley, who were unsuccessful in their attempts to bribe him, ensnare him, and link him with known traitors. Henry then cut off More's salary and his family was thrust into poverty. On April 13, 1534, More was taken to Lambeth Castle and, in the company of other nobles and clerics, asked to swear to the Act of Succession. He refused. Having been convicted of no crime and without any legal grounds for arrest, he was confined to the Tower of London. His trial was held on July 1, 1535. He was convicted on the basis of the perjured testimony of Richard Rich. "In good faith, Master Rich," More said, "I am sorrier for your perjury than for my own peril." Death and Destruction On July 6, 1535, St. Thomas More was martyred for his defense of the sanctity of Christian marriage and his defense of the authority of the Vicar of Christ. He was beatified by Leo XIII in 1886 and canonized on the fourth centenary of his death by Pius XI. In the spring of 1536, less than a year after More's death, Queen Catherine was dead, the divorce affair over, and Anne Boleyn was not far from the scaffold herself, though only Henry knew it. Thus it was that that Henry VIII brought sorrow to merry old England. The brutal suppression of the monasteries would soon follow. More than one thousand monasteries and convents were destroyed and monks and nuns turned out into the street to find, in Cromwell's words, "real work." In destroying them, Henry introduced the modern welfare state. Once, the poor were cared for in dignity and charity by men and women religious. Now they were dependent on the state. Anyone with a passing familiarity with public housing projects can appreciate this bitter fruit of the Protestant rebellion in England. Indeed, because England was destined for "a unique good fortune in the leadership of the world it is through its effect in England that the Reformation survives today as a world force," (Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Reformation, 161) and the worst manifestations of it, from Christendom's first state-sanctioned regicide, to the ugliness of industrialization, to the treatment of indigenous peoples, including American Indians, are this so-called Reformation's darker legacy. With the exception of literature, English intellectual life declined, and even within English literature, it is the Catholics--Shakespeare, Dryden, Chesterton--who shine. English philosophers are more political theorists, and their ideas sparked the errors of the Enlightenment. The suppression of the Church in England was the dress rehearsal for the French Revolution, the Italian Risorgimento, the Mexican Revolution, and the Spanish Civil War. Henry VIII's divorce is the reason America is a Protestant country. It is not fitting, however, for Christians to end with even a hint of despair. Thomas More prayed for the men who sent him to his death, saying that he hoped they would all share eternity together. Catholics, with such charitable and courageous advocates as Sts. Thomas More, John Fisher, Augustine of Canterbury, and all the English martyrs, have good cause to hope and pray for the unification of all Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. SIDEBARS Quick Lesson in Canon Law Canon Law acknowledges a number of impediments to marriage. The three dealing with family relationships are: [*]Consanguinity deals with the possibility of marriage between blood relatives. Nowadays, brothers and sisters and first cousins may not marry. [*]Affinity deals with the possibility of marriage between a person and the relatives of his or her spouse (presuming the bond with the spouse has ceased to exist, usually by death). [*]Public decency (some medieval authors called it quasi-affinity) deals with the possibility of marriage between one person and the relative of another with whom the first person has been engaged or has had an unconsummated marriage. Both affinity and public decency were at issue in Henry's divorce. So far as affinity is concerned, Canon Law today forbids marriages between persons related by affinity in the direct line (that is parent to child.) So, if my wife dies, I can't marry her mother, but I could marry her sister. Interestingly, the Church allows that such a second marriage (to my wife's sister) might, in fact, benefit my children--that is, in the event of their mother's death, the Church is open to the possibility that it could be better for my children to have their aunt, whom they know, as their new mother. In the sixteenth century, the impediments of affinity were more restrictive. A man could not marry his dead brother's widow without a dispensation from this Canon Law. The question is what kind of dispensation was required. Catherine testified that the marriage between her and Arthur had never been consummated. Henry accepted the testimony and later said that he found Catherine a virgin. Thus, a dispensation of quasi-affinity or public decency would have been sufficient. In other words, the first marriage was never consummated, but for the sake of public appearances, a dispensation to marry should be granted. One more detail about affinity in the Canon Law tradition: Marriage is the consent of the partners to be conjugally united. If they are baptized, it is also a sacrament. Consummation expresses the intimate sense and purpose of the marital consent. Consequently, the Church held that any act of intercourse, whether conjugal or illicit (as in fornication or adultery), created a relation by affinity among the relatives of the persons involved. Thus, a man who fornicated with a woman was not free later to marry her sister. This restriction no longer exists in Canon Law, but it did in the sixteenth century. Lady Anne Boleyn "Lady" is the title that courtesy and history have bestowed on Anne, but to the Spanish ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, she was the king's "concubine." To the common people of England, who loved Catherine, Anne was "the goggle-eyed" harlot and a "sorceress," names routinely flung at her when she appeared in public. Henry VIII had kept a string of mistresses, but Anne was not content to be another one of these. She wanted to be queen. The fact that there was already a queen in place was just a matter to be overcome. Anne was an unattractive creature. She had a wart and six fingers on one hand, and, according to contemporary accounts, a pronounced goiter. She was too skinny. She did possess, however, a pair of large, dark eyes and fantastic powers to seduce. Her father was Thomas Boleyn, first Earl of Wiltshire, a member of the new nobility created by wealth and ambition rather than blood and tradition. Anne took her formation as a lady in waiting in the notoriously anti-Catholic court of Marguerite of Navarre, sister to Francis I, king of France. At court, Anne and her older sister Mary would have reveled not only in the salacious writings of Marguerite but also in the heretical ideas so popular in that French court. When she returned to England in 1522, she was, in Chapuy's words, "more Lutheran than Luther." Anne and her sister took positions as attendants to Queen Catherine. First Mary, and then Anne, sometime around the beginning of the year 1527, captured the king's attention. Mary was content to be Henry's concubine for a time. Anne had bigger plans. Repugnant to the Laws of God After being convicted, St. Thomas More had this to say about the Act of Parliament which made Henry VIII head of the church in England: Inasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and his Holy Church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior Himself, personally present upon the earth, only to St. Peter and his successors, bishops of the same See, by special prerogative guaranteed, it is therefore in law among Christian men insufficient to charge any Christian man. (Gerard Wegemer, St. Thomas More: A Portrait in Courage, 215; cf. William Roper, Lives of St. Thomas More, 45) A Defensione III.LXXVI.LXXVIhttp://www.catholic.com/profiles/christopher-check Christopher Check is Director of Development at Catholic Answers. A graduate of Rice University, for nearly two decades he served as vice president of The Rockford Institute. Before that he served for seven years as a field artillery officer in the Marine Corps, attaining the grade of captain.... more...

Rather than create 1000 red herrings by pasting an entire book, just stick to the question at hand; a line of episcopal succession
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
For the consecration of the elements to take place, it must be performed by a ministerial priest, whose role is different from that of the universal priesthood all believers. Since the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the other ancient Christian churches have preserved the ministerial priesthood through the apostolic succession of bishops, their Eucharist is valid.
Unfortunately, the ministerial priesthood has not been retained in Protestant churches. Most Protestant churches (all but the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition) have rejected the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood and thus ceased to perpetuate it, breaking the apostolic succession in their circles.
It is equally unfortunate that, while many Anglicans/Episcopalians profess belief in a ministerial priesthood, the apostolic succession was ruptured in their circles, and their priesthood is no longer valid. After Henry VIII broke away from the Church, his successor, Edward VI, introduced a drastically altered and invalid version of the rite of ordination, with the result that the apostolic succession (which had previously been present in the Anglican Church) ceased, and its ministerial priesthood stopped.
This does not mean that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans do not experience a real encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist. They can receive Jesus spiritually in communion, they just do not receive him in the full, sacramental manner he intended and which he wants them to experience. These communions are not just "a sham" but can be genuine spiritual encounters with Christ.
Upon entering Catholic life, one does not need to look back upon one's former communions as simply empty shams; one can view them as spiritual encounters with Christ, encounters which gave one the grace to approach Christ even more closely, finally coming to receive the fullness of the Eucharist He wanted you to have.

Answered by: <A href="http://www.catholic.com/profiles/catholic-answers-staff">Catholic Answers Staff
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
barryatlake said:
Edward VI, introduced a drastically altered and invalid version of the rite of ordination, with the result that the apostolic succession (which had previously been present in the Anglican Church) ceased, and its ministerial priesthood stopped.
Note that this is a completely different claim than the one you insinuated. You might have the integrity to acknowledge that.

This claim has itself been refuted; we can deal with that if it's relevant.
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
Dr. Adam, the trouble is; what you wrote is 180 degree different from that which Jesus taught, Jesus always taught 'unity', as per bible. While Jesus never form a 'denomination" of any type, Jesus only left us with a church, not churches and not a Holy Bible. Tthe Church that Jesus formed and left was only formed on His apostles and their replacements/ successors and their successors , on and on down through the centuries. Before the Protestant Reformation, those many different faces and races of people that you mention,they could only be found in His Catholic Church, when Protestants split from Christ's Church, the faces on people were always white within all their denominational splits. All those continuous split-away denominational Protestant churches, also only contained Caucasians. until the mid-nineteenth Century [ post civil war era ]. God does not differentiate between races or faces of people' God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from the time of Pentecost never differentiates between people, while it also never split from a former church as all Protestant churches have.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Dr. Adam, the trouble is; what you wrote is 180 degree different from that which Jesus taught, Jesus always taught 'unity', as per bible. While Jesus never form a 'denomination" of any type, Jesus only left us with a church
That's right. His church is the assembly of all true believers in Christ as Lord and Savior. The different denominations are, therefore, only different approaches to the smaller matters, not unlike your own denomination having 23 separate "rites" in order to accomodate the nationalism of various ethnic groups, plus "ordinaries" and "Uniate" churches, etc. etc. An outsider could easily observe this proliferation of worship groups with different liturgies and say "Wow. How disunited!"
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
The Catholic Church is "one'. Noboby can stop any other church from calling itself Catholic. ATrue Catholic Church can trace it's religious lineage back down through the centuries to Jesus and one of His original Apostles, do you think that Jesus individually taught each of His apostles different conflicting doctrine/teaching ? I don't believe that to be true, at least not taught from Holy Scripture, but possibly taught by all these Johnny-come- lately Protestant ministers.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The Catholic Church is "one'.

You can say that. Anyone of any denominantion can say that.

But there are all those different worship formats and different organizations for different ethnic groups, so it's not a lot different from the various denominations in Christianity overall.

ATrue Catholic Church can trace it's religious lineage back down through the centuries to Jesus and one of His original Apostles
Yeh. A lot of us in other churches say more or less the same thing.

do you think that Jesus individually taught each of His apostles different conflicting doctrine/teaching ?
No, but even when he have Jesus' own words in front of us, we aren't all in agreement about what he meant to tell us, don't you know? The Roman Catholic Church interprets one verse one way, the next church interprets it differently, and yet another one may interpret it a third way.

I don't believe that to be true, at least not taught from Holy Scripture, but possibly taught by all these Johnny-come- lately Protestant ministers.
I understand. You don't really know what Scripture says on the matter, but in any case, you won't believe anything if it casts doubt on what your own denomination says you must believe. You are loyal to it above all.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I am with Albion. We are all God's children. It does not matter what we believe. I do disagree with him on one thing though. Different denominations have different beliefs. Denominational divisions are more significant than differences in Catholic services.
That's right...which is why I would never say that it does not matter what we believe. However, the issue was "unity."

No church that has over 20 different jurisdictions created to cater to the nationalistic or ethnic differences of its members is in any position to claim any "moral high ground" when it comes to "unity." :doh:

The differences in belief or practice that separate most (but not all) Christian denominations from each other concern non-essential beliefs, purely administrative issues, or matters that are even less significant.
 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
Both of you are mistaken on the One True Church that Jesus left for "all" of us.

ebia wrote:"You can say that. Anyone of any denominantion can say that"
Maybe true but only "one" is the true church. The One and only true Church would be that Church that traces back to Jesus and apostles.

ebia, wrote: "No, but even when he have Jesus' own words in front of us, we aren't all in agreement about what he meant to tell us, don't you know? The Roman Catholic Church interprets one verse one way, the next church interprets it differently, and yet another one may interpret it a third way. "

Yes, everybody interprets differently, that is why the Holy Bible tells us that nobody should interpret Holy Scripture differently than how Jesus taught His Apostles, that is the one correct interpretation of Holy Scripture and only the Catholic Apostolic Church follows those divine instructions as the bible tells us.


 
Upvote 0
B

barryatlake

Guest
Regarding differences between interpretations, let's briefly point out that a single word in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic can have multiple meanings when translated into English. That is but one reason why Scripture needs an official interpreter, as 2Peter 1:20 and 3:16 indicates, and that interpreter is clearly his Church, which can make decisions (Matt. 18:18), bind and loose (Matt. 16:18).

Scripturally, what is the pillar and foundation of truth? First Timothy 3:15 supplies the answer! If we want to be sure that we are living according to his truth, we should seek to be one with his Church!
 
Upvote 0

DarylFawcett

Ticket Support Manager
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2005
46,721
4,216
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟1,101,033.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Interesting responses on why so many denominations.

Do all these different denominations that hold to doctrines that are sometimes opposite to those of other denominations fulfill Christ's prayer in John 17 for oneness and unity in Him and in His truth?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Interesting responses on why so many denominations.

Do all these different denominations that hold to doctrines that are sometimes opposite to those of other denominations fulfill Christ's prayer in John 17 for oneness and unity in Him and in His truth?

Haven't we already covered that?

1. Jesus prayed for that to be allowed. But if men do not achieve it, which denomination is to be blamed? That can't really be answered, since each one will point to another one as the dissident.

2. There is no reason to conclude that such unity is achieved only within the framework of some denomination. It is a well-established principle that all true believers are united if, regardless of denomination, they agree on the essential teaching of the Gospels, which is that salvation is by faith in Christ as one's Lord and Savior.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know if this question was ever asked and if this is even the most appropriate place to ask it.

Why are there so many denominations that seem to believe something from the Bible that in some instances contradicts the beliefs of one or more denominations with the beliefs of one or more other denominations?

Why not? God's in charge, isn't He?

Why He allows that division to happen is known only to Him and although we can assess the lessons we are to learn from our divisions (so many of them!) I think the point is that we collectively haven't learned what we are supposed to from this thorn in our side- hence division will continue.

Another thing to note is that the vast majority of divisions now are not really doctrinal, but have other causes and by and large Churches work together, share the same hymns, songs, teachers and bookstores these days. Some Christians hate that, but I'm just saying that the divisions are largely shallow these days.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Another thing to note is that the vast majority of divisions now are not really doctrinal, but have other causes and by and large Churches work together, share the same hymns, songs, teachers and bookstores these days. Some Christians hate that, but I'm just saying that the divisions are largely shallow these days.

That's very true, but a lot of people absolutely refuse to believe it. It conflicts with their idea that the proliferation of denominations simply has to be because of endless wrangling over doctrinal minutia.
 
Upvote 0

Exodus20

Newbie
Mar 30, 2013
76
19
Visit site
✟15,242.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Because people don't always agree with each other. There has always been sectarianism in Christianity, even during the Apostolic era.

Let's say Bob and George attend the same church, Bob and George then find an issue they disagree about, Bob's position is what his church says and George argues that their church is wrong. So George decides that in order to be more true to the Bible he has to start a new church.

Voila, a new denomination is born. Though, keep in mind, the term "denomination" is only accurate when describing Protestant groups. A more fitting term including all branches of Christianity would be "theological tradition" or "communion". For example the Old Catholic Churches (also called Ultrajectine) which departed from the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century are not Protestant and are therefore not a denomination or set of denominations, but rather a distinct family of churches. What these distinct church bodies have in common is their rejection of Papal Infallibility as defined int he First Vatican Council. They could be described as a branch of Christianity, or a theological tradition, though it may not be wholly accurate to call them "denominations" since that term is usually limited to those church bodies which share some explicit or implicit connection with the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

-CryptoLutheran


:clap: :amen: Well stated ! Good illustration CryptoLutheran....

It is kinda-sorta like the reason that some folks eat hamburgers, fries & a Coca-Cola at McDonalds , and other folks order a Taco , Taco sauce , & a 7up drink @ Taco Bell. Both places serve food but some folks prefer one kind over another. ... And sometimes - once a year some of us go visit the Chinese place and get some Fried Rice... It is all 'Food" , but we may not like the tastes , the packaging , the atmosphere or the price.

For another example or "Thought-for-the-day" : There are at least 6 flavors of Presbyterians in the U.S.A. & Canada. If you are in a large enough City or massive County , look in your Yellow Pages Phone Book and you can probably attend 2 different kinds of "Presbyterian" buildings.

All of them claim to believe the historic gospel , and hold to the Bible as God's Word. All hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 , BUT several of those "Ministers" would probably not be able to carpool to a funeral or wedding without coming to fisticuffs.

Why ? I think part of it is that some 'religious' people - who are active ,,, are not really "saved" / "Born-Again" / "Regenerated" people. The Born Again folks are usually the ones who stick close to the words of Holy Scripture... the 'religious' types are often Scripture deniers --- and that makes it impossible to have fellowship with them.

{ BTW - The same goes with the various Lutheran ( 5+ ) bodies in the U.S. & Canada also , and several of the various "Baptist" ( 6 ? ) groups. Sadly the Episcopal & Anglican groups now have bunches of splinters -- Mostly because of outright apostasy and perversion in a once historic / Doctrinal / Scriptural Communion - which has been around for centuries. There are also at least 4 kinds of groups here in the U.S. & Canada that have the word "Reformed" in their title ---- but several of them have gone jelly-spined , whilst others have gone extremely rigid. }

I cannot say that I like it - but I understand it. And it sure is better than following the Pope & the Vatican way.
 
Upvote 0

pathfinder777

Active Member
Dec 29, 2010
343
20
Orange County CA
✟23,057.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
:clap: :amen: Well stated ! Good illustration CryptoLutheran....

It is kinda-sorta like the reason that some folks eat hamburgers, fries & a Coca-Cola at McDonalds , and other folks order a Taco , Taco sauce , & a 7up drink @ Taco Bell. Both places serve food but some folks prefer one kind over another. ... And sometimes - once a year some of us go visit the Chinese place and get some Fried Rice... It is all 'Food" , but we may not like the tastes , the packaging , the atmosphere or the price.

For another example or "Thought-for-the-day" : There are at least 6 flavors of Presbyterians in the U.S.A. & Canada. If you are in a large enough City or massive County , look in your Yellow Pages Phone Book and you can probably attend 2 different kinds of "Presbyterian" buildings.

All of them claim to believe the historic gospel , and hold to the Bible as God's Word. All hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 , BUT several of those "Ministers" would probably not be able to carpool to a funeral or wedding without coming to fisticuffs.

Why ? I think part of it is that some 'religious' people - who are active ,,, are not really "saved" / "Born-Again" / "Regenerated" people. The Born Again folks are usually the ones who stick close to the words of Holy Scripture... the 'religious' types are often Scripture deniers --- and that makes it impossible to have fellowship with them.

{ BTW - The same goes with the various Lutheran ( 5+ ) bodies in the U.S. & Canada also , and several of the various "Baptist" ( 6 ? ) groups. Sadly the Episcopal & Anglican groups now have bunches of splinters -- Mostly because of outright apostasy and perversion in a once historic / Doctrinal / Scriptural Communion - which has been around for centuries. There are also at least 4 kinds of groups here in the U.S. & Canada that have the word "Reformed" in their title ---- but several of them have gone jelly-spined , whilst others have gone extremely rigid. }

I cannot say that I like it - but I understand it. And it sure is better than following the Pope & the Vatican way.

Historically nothing even comes remotely close to the fragmentation that occurred within Christendom after Luther introduced Sola Scriptura the fruits of which Christianity being more divided than ever. The "Pope and Vatican Way" ...
At least that way is in theological continuity with the patristic Church....
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Historically nothing even comes remotely close to the fragmentation that occurred within Christendom after Luther introduced Sola Scriptura the fruits of which Christianity being more divided than ever. The "Pope and Vatican Way" ...
At least that way is in theological continuity with the patristic Church....

The mantra that Protestantism fragmented Christianity is getting stale, particularly when we've already discussed all the splits and schisms that had occurred prior to the Reformation. However, the proliferation of denominations in more recent times doesn't have anything to do with Sola Scriptura in any case. None.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Mantra?? No buddy, just historical reality.
"Mantra" may have been too colorful a word, although that's a favorite claim of Catholic posters around here. But "historical reality" it definitely is not. ^_^

Sure there were schisms before but comparing them to the divisions that occurred as a result of the reformation gives a whole new meaning to comparing apples to oranges...

I don't think so, especially since the biggest splits of all time--involving the EO and OO--had already occurred, and still exist. You can't blame that on the Protestant Reformation! And then we also had a series of lesser splits involving Bogomils, Cathars, Waldensians, and other such, some of which were also still ongoing at the time of the Reformation.

Now...THAT's historical reality. ;)
 
Upvote 0