Thread: What's wrong with Montanism? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024178

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I really don't know if I'm posting this in the rightplace - mods please move if necc.

I'm having a go at 'The Brothers Karamazov', in which one character accuses another of Montanism. (In fact, he accuses him of Arch-Ultra-Montanism in a funny moment where his intellectual hubris is punctured by a really bad pun about 'mountains' ).

So I looked up Montanism in my ancient Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - and found something which looks to me like modern charismaticism / pentacostalism with an ascetic bent.

Would one of you fine people with an education care to tell me what the early church found to object to about it, and whether such objections might apply to what I imagine to be its modern manifestations?

cheers

Mark
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Ultra-Montanism is completely different from Montanism. Ultra-Montanists exaggerate the authority of the pope to include local and temporal issues. Some ultra-montanists might even propose that the pope is infallible in absolutely everything he says and thinks.

Montanists believed in ongoing prophecy past the apostolic age. For the Catholic Church, whatever authority personal revelation had, lone prophets did NOT have the authority to supersede the faith handed down by the apostles, or to impose their personal revelations on the entire Church. The bishops lead the Church, not gibbering, self appointed prophets.

[ 23. November 2012, 13:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Ultramontanism is the word for the movement in the RC church in the C19 to exalt the authority of the Pope, leading to the definition of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.

I understand the word derives from the Latin for "beyond the mountains" ie, beyond the Alps, which implies it originated north of the Alps.

Dostoyevsky loathed papal power, of course, since for him mainline Christianity was Russian Orthodox.
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
The question appears to have been answered - the name 'ultramontane' was originally French as it referred to those Catholics who were obsessed with looking over the mountains i.e. across the Alps to Rome, rather than the historical quasi-independence of the Church in France... or so I understand.

If more clarification is needed perhaps Purgatory would be the place, as the matter isn't primarily liturgical?

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 

---

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Ultramontanism is the word for the movement in the RC church in the C19 to exalt the authority of the Pope, leading to the definition of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.

I understand the word derives from the Latin for "beyond the mountains" ie, beyond the Alps, which implies it originated north of the Alps.

Dostoyevsky loathed papal power, of course, since for him mainline Christianity was Russian Orthodox.

---

Point of order: the definition of Papal infallibility at VI marked the decisive defeat of Ultramontanism.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
By VI, CL means Vatican I.

In case others wondered what "6" has to do with Ultramontanism as well
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
The reputation of the Montanists received a new lease of life with the emergence of the Pentecostal and then charismatic movements in the twentieth century.

I own two popular histories of the Pentecostal movement which give the Montanists an honoured role in the authors’ (invalid) efforts to estabilish an unbroken line of charismatic practice from apostolic times to the present.

Despite their condemnation at First Constantinople in 381, it was never obvious that they were heretical.

Tertullian joined them, and as F.F. Bruce remarked in his The Spreading Flame, in response to a Roman Catholic who was amazed that such an intelligent man was “led away” by them: “…it might equally well be said that there must have been something of more solid worth in Montanism than is generally supposed, since it appealed to such an intelligent man as Tertullian”.

Wesley asserted that “The Montanists were…real, scriptural Christians”.

It is possible to be a mildly skeptical about their eccentricities and excesses without condemning them out of hand.
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Diarmid Maculloch (apologies if I've mispelled him) in his History of Christianity is definite that Perpetua was a Monatanist.

I've certainly heard the view that the hostility to Montanism was partly because they had women in positions of authority and leadership.

[ 24. November 2012, 08:34: Message edited by: venbede ]
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
Another angle to explore this is through the life of the apologist Tertullian. Here's a taster.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, as has been said, The Brothers Karamazov contains reference to Ultramontanism, not Montanism ...

I'm not so convinced that the Montanists were kosher. If you read Eusebius (I think, it's a long time since I read him) and other early church historians it appears that its leading lights in Asia Minor - where it started up - were purporting to be incarnations of the Paraclete - as it were - but then modern charismatics might say that this was simply a reference to the practice of uttering 'prophecy' in the first person - in a 'thus saith the Lord' style.

It would appear, though, that the thing Eusebius was concerned about wasn't so much prophecy itself, but the way the Montanists prophesied - in a somewhat frenzied or ecstatic state. It would appear that Eusebius expected genuine Christian prophecy to be delivered in a much more cool, calm and collected fashion.

So it could have been more a question of style rather than substance. That said, those who put the Montanists forward as a positive enthusiastic/ecstatic movement whose fire and fervour was extinguished by an increasingly formalised Church - such as the Pentecostal historian that Kaplan cites and the restorationist house-churchy types I used to knock around with - have to contend with an embarrassing fact:

viz. the prophecies of Montanus and his two named female followers failed to be fulfilled. They predicted future events - such as, apparently, the descent of the Holy Spirit in physical form onto a mountain in Phrygia - which did not take place.

Ok, history is written by the victors and what positive aspects of Montanism there may have been could have been air-brushed out by the official Church. But by anyone's standards, I think what little we know about Montanism does give pause.

For a kick-off there's the apparently uncontrollable behaviour - when the NT tells us that 'the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets' and that 'let everything be done decently and in order.'

Then there's the issue of unfulfilled prophecy. There's no wriggling out of that one.

You had to have a short memory to remain within the more full-on sections of the contemporary charismatic movement for any length of time. Their prophecies failed the test on all counts. They weren't fulfilled either.

So, nice try Montanists but no coconut ...
 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Given that this appears to be turning into an interesting doctrinal discussion on Montanism in its own right, it's off to Purgatory with you!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

[eta Hostly tag!]

[ 24. November 2012, 14:11: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ...

Thinking about it, let's turn the thing around and suggest what might be RIGHT with Montanism ... before considering where it might fall short.

It all depends on the context, of course.

If it was seen as being 'wrong' or off-key simply because there were women involved then clearly few of us would see that as any reason to dismiss it or be wary of it. This doesn't seem to have been the stated reason behind anti-Montanist sentiments at the time, though - although that doesn't mean that there wasn't a sexist agenda there. Who knows?

I s'pose it all depends on where you're coming from.

If you believe that 'prophecy' in the form of the spiritual gift described in the NT (particularly 1 Corinthians) has continued then yes, let's give the Montanists a plus point for continuing to practice it - or something like it.

If you believe that these things should be tested and regulated in some way and that apparently ecstatic and 'uncontrollable' urges and impulses aren't necessarily a sign of the Holy Spirit's activity then - uh-oh ... Do not Pass Go, do not collect your £200.

It would appear, from what little we know, and Tertullian's defence of the Montanists has been lost, that their prophecies didn't pass muster according to several criteria:

1. The weren't fulfilled.

2. They were delivered (according to their opponents) in a somewhat frenzied and uncontrolled fashion.

There does seem to be a consensus on-line, across contributors from different ecclesial backgrounds and traditions, that the core values and doctrine of the original Montanists were entirely orthodox - but that they drifted off into heresy later on.

One might argue that they might not have done the latter had the Church been open to their contribution - in the same way that the later Pentecostals would not have had to hive off and form their own assemblies had the rest of Christendom been willing to accept their testimony.

Things were in a state of flux back then anyway, and I think it would be anachronistic to see the pre-Nicene Church as entirely uniform in its beliefs and practices - although I do believe that the Nicene and Chalcedonian settlements derived from prevailing or proto-orthodox teachings across the churches at that time.

Pentecostal and charismatic historians and commentators are always trying to find evidence for the continuation of spiritual gifts - as they understand them - and so Tertullian is one of their favourite Patristic figures. Tertullian could be a bit of a literalist though, he could ... I've sorry to say ... 'over-egg' things.

From what I can gather, the picture that emerges from the Patristic writings about the continuation of spiritual gifts - tongues, prophecy, healing etc etc is pretty patchy. Some, like Augustine, will suggest that this sort of thing is quite common and still happening. Others will comment that there's a lot less of 'that sort of thing' around than there was in NT times.

We don't really know how widespread these things were even in NT times, though, do we? Although I'd imagine that this sort of thing was very much an accepted part of a 1st century world-view with pagans, Christians, Jews and everybody else accepting the existence of the supernatural and interventions by God, gods or spirits in the daily affairs of human beings.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying:

- The Montanists mightn't have been that unusual by the standards of the time in believing in or practicing prophecy.

- Where they appear to have been out of synch with a growing consensus (rightly or wrongly) within the Christian communities was the way in which they did this stuff.

- They may also, and we only have their opponents word for it, have come out with duff prophecies.

So a bit a of a curate's egg.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Your comparison of the Montanist movement to the current penty/charo movement is quite helpful in some respects, Gamaliel.

As a (non-cessationist) non-pentecostal, I would reject as unjust and illogical any attempt to dismiss the whole present movement on the grounds that a few dodgy prophecies, and a few examples of behaviour which (to Western, middle-class eyes, at any rate) does not come under the heading "decently and in order", can be found if one looks hard enough.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Incidentally, the antonym of ultramontane (in the theological sense) is cisalpine (or, especially of France, gallican).

Now back to your discussion...
 

---

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
I seem to remember reading that Montanus was proclaimed the incarnate Holy Spirit, and that baptisms were performed "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Lord Montanus." Has this been debunked, or am I remembering correctly what had been taught.

[ 24. November 2012, 22:31: Message edited by: uffda ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Point of order: the definition of Papal infallibility at VI marked the decisive defeat of Ultramontanism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Ultramontanism is the word for the movement in the RC church in the C19 to exalt the authority of the Pope, leading to the definition of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.

I understand the word derives from the Latin for "beyond the mountains" ie, beyond the Alps, which implies it originated north of the Alps.

Dostoyevsky loathed papal power, of course, since for him mainline Christianity was Russian Orthodox.

---

Point of order: the definition of Papal infallibility at VI marked the decisive defeat of Ultramontanism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
Point of order: the definition of Papal infallibility at VI marked the decisive defeat of Ultramontanism.

---

On what do you base this statement?

Having recently re-read the chapter Papal Infallibility in Ian Ker, Newman's biographer, I have been reminded that Newman, who agreed with the dogma, but had grave doubts about the wisdom of the timing and circumstances of its promulgation, undoubtedly viewed it as a victory for the Ultramontaists, albeit a circumscribed victory, because the wording did not go as far as they had hoped, and because he foresaw that the interpretations of any rulings made under its terms would still need to be interpreted by the RCC as a whole.

[ 25. November 2012, 02:40: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes, as has been said, The Brothers Karamazov contains reference to Ultramontanism, not Montanism ...

---

Oops. On checking back through the yellowing, recycled leaves of my Dover Giant Thrift edition, I see you are right, and I am an a*se.

I was interested in the 'Montanist / modern pentecostal' comparisons which this thread has sparked - thanks. I didn't mean to generate simultaneous discussion of views of papal authority in the C19 - but hey, I guess that's what can happen when sprays unfamiliar terms around in learned company...
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
uggg. Now a double post. Mods help me, please...

[ETA Done, DT, Purgatory Host]

[ 25. November 2012, 10:34: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 

---

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Having recently re-read the chapter Papal Infallibility in Ian Ker, Newman's biographer, I have been reminded that Newman, who agreed with the dogma, but had grave doubts about the wisdom of the timing and circumstances of its promulgation, undoubtedly viewed it as a victory for the Ultramontaists, albeit a circumscribed victory, because the wording did not go as far as they had hoped, and because he foresaw that the interpretations of any rulings made under its terms would still need to be interpreted by the RCC as a whole.

---

quote:

---

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that applies to the liturgy. It is not 'manufactured'. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

---

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Kaplan, I am certainly not dismissing the entire Pentecostal/charismatic thing. But I do write from insider experience of it. For the record, I would regard the more working-class manifestations of the movement to be more 'authentic' than its middle-class incarnations - a view I tend to share to with the sociologist and canon-theologian in the Anglican Church (although he's Russian Orthodox) and son of an Elim Pentecostal preacher-man, Andrew Walker.

I broadly agree with most things Walker writes, and, like him, grew up in the South Wales Valleys so have first-hand experience of the working-class Pentecostalism that was very much a feature of the religious scene down there.

Ok - I am middle-class, though, a Guardian-reader and university educated. But I went to a bog-standard comprehensive where I rubbed shoulders with the daughter of the pentie pastor and had friends who were Baptists, Brethren and whatever else besides.

Ok - back to the point ...

We can only judge Montanism by the standards prevailing at the time, and if the 'received' version of events is to be believed - and we only have that to go on - then it would appear:

- That there were a few duff prophecies. Big time. Not just minor duffness but full-on whacky style.

- That the Montanists apparently prophesied in a way that appeared overly ecstatic and indeed 'frenzied' to those who preferred a milder and more moderate style of delivery.

How do we assess whether these charges are legit'?

The same applies to contemporary charismatic practice. To an extent we can only judge and assess it on its merits and by its own standards and frame of reference - like any other form of religious expression, charismatic spirituality has its own internal logic. The same applies to your non-cessationist, non-Pentecostal approach as much as it does to Triple Tiara's or IngoB's Roman Catholicism.

I would maintain that my posts on these issues are fairly even-handed on the whole. I would not dismiss anything and everything I have experienced or witnessed on the charismatic scene - whether in Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal or 'new church' circles.

However - I would posit that there aren't just a few iffy prophecies around but a whole shed-load. To the extent that I am pretty sceptical these days of most contemporary claims about the 'gift of prophecy' - it's hard to quantify, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of what passes for prophecy in such circles is simply pietistic pap put across in a way that sounds convincing at the time ...

As for 'things being done decently and in order' - I'm not saying that anything that appears 'loud' or wild or scary to middle-class sensibilities is necessarily over-stepping the mark ... but I've been round the block enough times to know how easy it is to whip things up. I've done it myself. I know the ropes. I can see the joins.

That's why - if you'd read my post correctly - you'll have noticed that I referred to Montanism as a 'curate's egg' ie. good in parts. Nice try, but no coconut. It missed the mark.

As to who should be interested in the Montanists today - which was the issue our Ultramontane friend, IngoB (whose middle name must surely be 'Ultramontane') raised ... well, if it were not for the contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic movements they would simply be an interesting footnote in church history.

I can understand why Pentecostals and charismatics might be interested in them. They might see them as some kind of precursors or even, as in the instance you cited, Kaplan, try to demonstrate some kind of 'succession'.

It's funny how these things work. I remember when Andrew Walker made comparisons between the 1980s restorationist movement and the Irvingites, the Catholic Apostolic Church of the 19th century. The leaders all threw up their hands in horror and dismissed the comparison immediately. How dare Walker compare us to a dodgy group like that?

Of course, he wasn't suggesting 'succession' but parallels.

There might well be parallels between the 2nd century Montanists and later 'enthusiasts' and charismatics. I suggest that there is.

And the parallels and similarities are as follows:

- They were/are 'enthusiasts'.
- They were/are well-intentioned.
- The prophetic 'success rate' is hit and miss. More miss than hit.

I won't be so black-and-white and binary as to suggest a fourth parallel:

- They were wrong ...


 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
grew up in the South Wales Valleys so have first-hand experience of the working-class Pentecostalism

I went to a bog-standard comprehensive where I rubbed shoulders with the daughter of the pentie pastor and had friends who were Baptists, Brethren and whatever else besides.

---

quote:

---

I can understand why Pentecostals and charismatics might be interested in them. They might see them as some kind of precursors or even, as in the instance you cited, Kaplan, try to demonstrate some kind of 'succession'.

---

quote:

---

I remember when Andrew Walker made comparisons between the 1980s restorationist movement and the Irvingites, the Catholic Apostolic Church of the 19th century.

---

quote:

---

I won't be so black-and-white and binary as to suggest a fourth parallel:

- They were wrong ...

---

Good.

I've probably been a bit of a devil's advocate for them, in my zeal to defend dissidents against ecclesiastical absolutists.

I agree with you that they were "good in parts".

[ 26. November 2012, 09:45: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
All of which proves, if proof were needed, that it all depends on where one stands in the first place.

If you're a Plymouth Brother then you are almost duty bound to stand up for anyone you consider to be bucking the trend of ecclesial authoritarianism (as you'd see it).

Broadbent did it, of course, but he ended up with some pretty strange bed-fellows. The Bogomils anyone? The Cathars?



The rule of thumb in that neck of the woods - dare I say your neck of the woods - is to seize upon anything that looks rather like one's own setting and over-egg its significance or claim it as some kind of precursor. I'm not saying you're doing that in the way Broadbent - misguidedly - did (in my view) but there's a mild element of it there.

'The Montanists found themselves pitched against the religious status quo of their day ... therefore they must have been kosher ...'

What I'm suggesting - and I don't think it's that far from your own position - is that there may very well have been positive elements in Montanism but ultimately - for whatever reason - they blew it to some extent.

It's difficult to assess how kosher/orthodox or otherwise the Montanists were, of course. We only have the 'official' church historians to go on. But why should we automatically doubt that they were close to the money on this one?

It seems to me that the safest cause of action would be to adopt a neutral stance - or else to say that it was a mixed picture.

I'm not saying that Eusebius, Bede or any other historian of that era should be taken as read - but neither am I suggesting that we take a Broadbent line and see any and every non-standard or slightly (or very) out-of-whack movement as being the glorious precursor of whatever flavour of church we happen to think is the best.

Broadbent's 'Pilgrim Church' is risible. I read it initially in an attempt to bolster my restorationism, only to realise very quickly that it would give very little support and would collapse as soon as you put any weight upon it.

And yes, 'Restoring The Kingdom' did have a cover with a stylised knight riding across it. I still have the second edition, I think.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's difficult to assess how kosher/orthodox or otherwise the Montanists were, of course. We only have the 'official' church historians to go on. But why should we automatically doubt that they were close to the money on this one?

It seems to me that the safest cause of action would be to adopt a neutral stance - or else to say that it was a mixed picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
those who feel that Rome/Constantinople were almost always invariably wrong (although there were Five main Patriarchates, I think, when the Montanists were around) and that dissidents and 'enthusiasts' were almost always invariably right.

I'm not sure it's as neat as that. I don't think Kaplan would say that it was that neat either.

---

I have previously expressed my gratitude for the hard spadework put in by the Eastern churches (with some help from the West) in establishing the trinitarian theological, christological and pneumatological foundations of the faith.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I know, which is why my comments were equivocal. I said that I didn't suspect you of a full-on Broadbent tendency and acknowledged that you'd take a more balanced view. It's there in my post if you care to take a look.

I would suggest that there's a mild form of Broadbent-ism there, though, as indeed there is with me. Not in the detail but in the ethos. These things run along a spectrum, of course. There's a continuum between forms of Anabaptism and independency and evangelical and pietistic movements within the historic denominations - so all of us who aren't RCs, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics or the higher forms of Lutheran are likely to be along that continuum somewhere.

I've been at the far end of it and have moved towards the centre and may even now have passed the centre and am sailing off into the stratosphere in the opposite direction ...

With caveats ...
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

originally posted by Kaplan Corday

I've lost my copy (did it have a stylized knight on horseback on the front cover?), but I remember the shortlived stir it occasioned at the time.

---

I think the one with the knight was "Enemy Territory", Kaplan. I've still got that, the retelling of the drama of the Incarnation in the ?second? chapter is magnificent. Sadly, I, too, have lent my copy of "Restoring the Kingdom", to person or persons unknown.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, the Knight was on the cover of 'Restoring the Kingdom.' I have it here. But you can't borrow it ...


 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Ah, it's on "Enemy Territory", too. Guess it must be a favourite motif of AW.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Perhaps it's all part of some sinister Knights Templar plot ...


 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
So, wre the hugenots Montanists?
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
So, wre the hugenots Montanists?

---

Don't know, but the Huguenots certainly weren't.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, they weren't Montanists insofar as they weren't followers of Montanus or influenced by him in any direct way.

If you are asking whether some Huguenots apparently practiced spiritual gifts such as prophecy etc - then yes, some of them did - particular in the Cevannes during a time of Huguenot rebellion and persecution by the RC authorities and the French Crown.

John Wesley was aware of that and alludes to it in his Journal somewhere.

Ronald Knox deals with the Huguenots and other 17th/18th century 'enthusiasts' in his book 'Enthusiasm'.

I would suggest that the same curate's egg standards apply to the instances of tongues/prophecy etc found among the Huguenots as were found among the Montanists or among contemporary charismatics - ie. all that glisters is not gold but there may have been genuine nuggets in there as well as iron-pyrates.

Certainly some of the Huguenot 'Camisards' in the Cevannes were religious fanatics and believed themselves to be immune to bullets on account of their faith. Consequently they would charge headlong at government troops - rather like the Boxers in the Boxer Rebellion in China or the North American Indian 'Ghost Dancers' who also believed themselves to be impervious to gunfire - only to be mown down.

Prophecy is as prophecy does.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
The French Prophets get a mention in both of the books I mentioned upthread which try to establish a Pentecostal succession.

They were by no means representative of the Huguenots as a whole.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I'm sure they do. Along with the Montanists they are among the few documented examples of 'prophetic' activity in the way that modern Pentecostals and charismatics see these things so they are bound to try to establish a connection or indication of 'succession' ...

It always amazes me how those who don't believe in a formal Apostolic Succession will bend over backwards to try to establish an alternative or 'informal' one - whether consciously or unconsciously.

That aside, other groups that 'qualify' would include the 'Magic Methodists' - a kind of radical/charismatic offshoot of the Primitive Methodists of early 19th century England.

It's funny, though, isn't it, that the people who include these kind of groups in their 'line of succession' don't include Joseph Smith and the early Mormons who, if anything, were probably more 'charismatic' than any of the more kosher groups that they would include.

The restorationist house-churches, for instance, as I've mentioned before, were always wary of accepting the Irvingites as some kind of precursor as the Catholic Apostolic Church was quite 'High Church' in its approach and may not have been 'clear' on the 'new birth' as they saw it in evangelical terms ...

And yet, the further back you go, the more inclined they were to give the Cathars the benefit of the doubt and any one else besides - just providing they were at loggerheads with the religious authorities and establishment of that time.

The view seemed to be, 'I don't care how iffy their theology was ... if they'd fallen out with Rome then they must have been doing something right ...'


 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It always amazes me how those who don't believe in a formal Apostolic Succession will bend over backwards to try to establish an alternative or 'informal' one - whether consciously or unconsciously.

---

Like the Southern Baptists who trace themselves back to the original Baptist - John the Baptist himself?
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0