mommaduck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Can you link that one again? I wanted to bookmark that one for linking here when the topic comes up, and now I can't find it. Orthodoxy as straight line Even RC and EO split line (I'm having trouble finding it due to the Barracuda on my son's computer...I know it has been posted on the board before, so it will take some searching) I found an LDS timeline of splits and the "trail of blood proof" timeline for Baptists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Orthodoxy as straight line That one I have (well, a different one); I'm looking for the one that doesn't show RC splitting off from EO, or EO splitting off from RC, but as an equally split arrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 About what exactly? Yes, I would argue that the Pope is incorrect if he said the EO, the OO and the Assyrian churches were Protestant. There are a handful of others also. And I don't think he would say that about us, given the amount of time he's spent with our Patriarchs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) I grew up IFB and I can tell you that they aren't exactly scholarly. I'll keep my mouth shut beyond that. There are several denominations who would take that as a compliment to a certain degree. The denomination of my childhood prided themselves on not sending their ministers to seminary. They still tend to be anti-intellectual. They see too-much-education as having a corrupting influence on ministers. I don't want to start denomination-bashing, so I'll just leave it at that's their prerogative. I really do believe that is there own choice and I can understand why they come to the conclusions that they do. After all I was raised that way. Edited October 3, 2011 by Daisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There are several denominations who would take that as a compliment to a certain degree. The denomination of my childhood prided themselves on not sending their ministers to seminary. They still tend to be anti-intellectual. They see too-much-education as having a corrupting influence on ministers. I don't want to start denomination-bashing, so I'll just leave it at that's their prerogative. Yep.:001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There are several denominations who would take that as a compliment to a certain degree. The denomination of my childhood prided themselves on not sending their ministers to seminary. They still tend to be anti-intellectual. They see too-much-education as having a corrupting influence on ministers. I don't want to start denomination-bashing, so I'll just leave it at that's their prerogative. Can I just say, "Wow!" Being anti-intellectual is so far removed from my reality I am just gobsmacked anyone would be. Each to his own, but wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Can I just say, "Wow!" Being anti-intellectual is so far removed from my reality I am just gobsmacked anyone would be. Each to his own, but wow. Being "spiritually intellectual" means you've read the latest Chick Tract :glare: (said tongue in cheek with a bite of truth) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Being "spiritually intellectual" means you've read the latest Chick Tract :glare: (said tongue in cheek with a bite of truth) Wow! Just wow. This is my learning something new for today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Pope Benedict would say you were taught incorrectly. Maybe my coffee hasn't kicked in yet... but are you saying that Pope Benedict has used the term "Protestants" to describe the Orthodox? :confused::confused::confused: I've never heard of such a thing, and would be interested to know what you're basing this on. Surely it would have made quite a flap in the ecumenical news if he had. Here's a speech from 2006 in which he clearly makes the distinction: Catechesis on the Week for Christian Unity "Indeed, prayer 'for the union of all' involves Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, brought together in different forms, times and ways by the same faith in Jesus Christ, the one Lord and Saviour. " :confused::confused::confused: I think I need a refill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe my coffee hasn't kicked in yet... but are you saying that Pope Benedict has used the term "Protestants" to describe the Orthodox? :confused::confused::confused: I've never heard of such a thing, and would be interested to know what you're basing this on. Surely it would have made quite a flap in the ecumenical news if he had. Here's a speech from 2006 in which he clearly makes the distinction: Catechesis on the Week for Christian Unity "Indeed, prayer 'for the union of all' involves Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, brought together in different forms, times and ways by the same faith in Jesus Christ, the one Lord and Saviour. " :confused::confused::confused: I think I need a refill... Could you pass the creamer and sugar? We're out and I really need my coffee....otherwise, I'm about to get really goofy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolfromIL Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe my coffee hasn't kicked in yet... but are you saying that Pope Benedict has used the term "Protestants" to describe the Orthodox? :confused::confused::confused: I've never heard of such a thing, and would be interested to know what you're basing this on. Surely it would have made quite a flap in the ecumenical news if he had. Here's a speech from 2006 in which he clearly makes the distinction: Catechesis on the Week for Christian Unity "Indeed, prayer 'for the union of all' involves Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, brought together in different forms, times and ways by the same faith in Jesus Christ, the one Lord and Saviour. " :confused::confused::confused: I think I need a refill... No I wasn't saying that. Apparently you are drinking decaf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Yes. Many Baptists don't consider themselves Protestant. They claim they never were part of Catholicism and thus, never broke off during the Reformation. ?This! I'm glad someone else knows! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 No I wasn't saying that. Apparently you are drinking decaf. No, and it's working now. ;) It appears that you already corrected yourself, a few minutes after making that post: Your right---I should have said "save orthodox" But after that, when Parrothead quoted your original post and said it was incorrect (which it was), you didn't point to your follow-up correction, but instead said that she was going against papal teaching. I'm guessing that you can see how this might be confusing. Back to your regularly scheduled thread. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 ?This! I'm glad someone else knows! They may claim that, but history states otherwise. The baptists formed from Protestants during the Reformation. They weren't already sitting there. Have there been other sects (some that didn't believe in infant baptism) that split off of or were excommunicated by the Catholic Church before the Reformation? Yes, but they weren't called baptists. There was no continual line of baptists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 They may claim that, but history states otherwise. The baptists formed from Protestants during the Reformation. They weren't already sitting there. Have there been other sects (some that didn't believe in infant baptism) that split off of or were excommunicated by the Catholic Church before the Reformation? Yes, but they weren't called baptists. There was no continual line of baptists. Just wanted to add that searching for "Trail of Blood Baptist" will bring up a lot of sites about this theory (both pro and con). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Well catholics believe that the only universal christian church is the Holy Catholic church.Just some quick comments on this: Catholics don't believe that there are no churches besides the Catholic Church. "Church" is a rather technical term from a Catholic POV; any Christian community under the authority of a bishop who has apostolic succession is recognized as a church. Other Christian communities are nevertheless often referred to as "churches" even if, strictly speaking, they would not be considered as such (as common courtesy would demand). Also, the Catholic Church never refers to itself as the Holy Catholic church. You may be confusing us with the Holy Roman Empire. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Also, the Catholic Church never refers to itself as the Holy Catholic church. It's not a term that's found very often in official documents, but we do say it in the Apostles' Creed with the understanding that it refers to the Catholic Church. (I'm aware that other Christian groups interpret these words differently. :)) It's also used in Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Vatican II's decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches: "The holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular Churches or rites." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myfatherslily Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Just wanted to add that searching for "Trail of Blood Baptist" will bring up a lot of sites about this theory (both pro and con). I've read this online. I'd link to it, but I no longer have it saved. I'm sure everyone else can do a search just as well as I can :) It was written in the 1800's, if I remember correctly. I looked up some of the groups the author said Baptists have come from. Those groups did not teach things that Baptists would agree with, so it baffles me a bit. Really, anyone interested should read it themselves and take the time to look up the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolfromIL Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 No, and it's working now. ;) It appears that you already corrected yourself, a few minutes after making that post: But after that, when Parrothead quoted your original post and said it was incorrect (which it was), you didn't point to your follow-up correction, but instead said that she was going against papal teaching. I'm guessing that you can see how this might be confusing. Back to your regularly scheduled thread. :) Lol I think I didn't have my right blend of coffee either. Your right, I should have clarified after the parrothead rightly pointed out that I omitted the eastern orthodox. That's what I meant....easy for me to say. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obsidian Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 That one I have (well, a different one); I'm looking for the one that doesn't show RC splitting off from EO, or EO splitting off from RC, but as an equally split arrow. Here is one where there is an equally split arrow, but it's fairly simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Here is one where there is an equally split arrow, but it's fairly simple. I believe that's the one they're referencing. :001_smile: Thank you for finding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Here is one where there is an equally split arrow, but it's fairly simple. THAT'S the one!:001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Yes, but in both cases, the word "holy" is not capitalized. It is an adjective, not a proper noun. :0) We do capitalize it quite often, such as in the title "Holy Mother Church." Or CCC 1814: "Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief." I'm not sure it makes much difference either way. After all, Latin originally had no distinction between capital and lower case. Maybe we're trying to make up for that by our love of capitalizing things. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.