Anscestors of Protestant churches


Many Protestants and groups that have names that they claim do not make them protestant but simply non-Catholic claim that they have anscestors in the faith that stretch back to Christ. Since there are numerous groups that have challenged the Catholic faith from time to time I wonder if it is time that the various groups claim their heritage. I request that all voters make their claim in the poll, tell why this group is their anscestor, and state how this group has represented itself as the Church up until and including the present manifestation of it. State the beliefs you share with these groups.

Also, tell how this group and your group is connect to Christ through the Apostles especially through St. Peter.



Do non-Catholics wish to claim the Gnostics were their anscestors? Many beleive as the Gnostics believed.

Do non-Catholics wish to choose other and claim with Arius that Jesus is not God. Many non-Catholics believe this. How about those who post on this board?

Don non-Catholics wish to claim the Cathars or Albigensians as their anscestors?

Then the other problem arises. If you choose thes groups can you trace their anscestory back to Christ and St. Peter?

Come on. You can do it. Many non-Catholics claim an authentic anscestory. Here’s yuur chance to make that claim stick.



I wonder if those who voted on the poll would give their rational for their vote.



I voted “other” because as a Methodist my church has roots in none of the heresies which you listed.
Here is the tracing of my church to it’s roots.

First Congregational Methodist Church 1855-Present
Congregatioinal Methodist Church 1852-1855
Methodist Episcopal Church, South 1830’s-1852
Methodist Episcopal Church 1784-1830’s
Church of England Sixth Century-1784

I included the Church of England as one continuous church from the mission of Augustine straight thru the reformation of Henry Tudor Jr.
Theology changed somewhat but the church remained intact.


But where’s the connection with the Apostles? Where is it with St. Peter? If you trace your origins back to Augustine of Canterbury why do you continue it through the VD infested Henry VIII?

What do you make of the support given the heretic Sprague? What do you make of the Gnostic tendencies in some areas of Methodism and the Arian heresies in so many other areas?



The connection to the Apostle’s comes through Augustine himself.
Why do I continue it through the VD infested tyranical Henry Tudor Jr.? Because as much as I despise the man he is still an integral part of English Church history. As far as Arianism and the Gnostics, such heresies are NOT present in the First Congregational Methodist Church, I assure you that.


To say that “theology changed somewhat” is a major understatement. Fundamental dogmas were denied! This is not continuity.


It is continuity, the church remained intact as an institution.
My church has been “free” from the Church of England since 1784 thanks to the American Revolution (Thanks to God) and the Christmas Conference but we have no ill feelings toward them and regard them as our link to early Christianity. Our Articles are basically the same as their Articles, main difference being that ours are still used to govern the church while theirs is a “historical document” nowadays.


There are some Messianic “Jews” that make the claim that they go all the way back to the apostles. I suppose they’ll have to get in the back of the line with some of the Baptist who profess St. John the Baptist as their founder.

In Pax Christi


It would be nice if these claiments outside the Catholic/Orthodox traditions could do more than claim.

As I look at all of the choices I see a connection with all of them for various protesting groups. Yet even with them there is no continuity. I’ve known Gnostic Protestors, Arian Protestors, Pelagian Protestors, Albigensian, Waldensian, etc, ad infinitum heretical protestors. I’ve never met a truely Catholic Protestor. It’s actually an oxymoron.



I honestly don’t think most Prostestants would have any idea what any of those groups were.

I had never heard of any of them until I began investigating the Catholic Church. If you had said Arianism to me, I would have assumed that you were talking about the Aryans, the Master Race of Madame Blavatsky and eventually Hitler.


Of course, probably most of the Protestants on this Board are much more knowledgeable than I was.

As I began studying Catholicism, I recognized much of my evangelical Protestant teaching in gnosticism. Evangelicals tend to diminish the body/flesh/matter and elevate the spirit/soul. Many times I have been admonished to “Forget the body and concentrate entirely on Jesus.” In other words, there was something “wrong” or “unclean” about my hunger, my thirst, my sleepiness, my pain, or my need to use the bathroom.

For much of the 1970s, there were a lot of evangelical teachings out urging Christians to “deny” their body. I specifically remember being taught that we don’t need to sleep more than a few hours out of the 24, and that we should rise early in the morning, around 3 A.M, to pray and study the Bible before our school or work.

This is rank gnosticism, a denial that we are human flesh, and that this flesh was created by God with a need for sleep. I remember feeling so guilty that I was unable to go without sleep. Thankfully wiser Protestants came along in the 1980s and urged us to respect our bodies rather than abuse them.

Another manifestation of Protestant “gnosticism” is the failure to accept that earthly things can be used for spiritual purposes, e.g., the waters of baptism. To a Protestant, all of these earthly things are just “symbols,” because things of this earth have no value. Flesh is not of God, only our spirits are of God.

Anyway, I think if you were to post this same poll on a primarily Protestant website, most people would react by saying, “Say what?” (And then, of course, you and your post would be kicked off the Protestant Board along with all the other Catholic “non-Christians!”)


the VD infested tyranical Henry Tudor Jr.?

On a historical note:

  1. Henry was not a Jr.
  2. There is absolutely no historical support that Henry VIII suffered from VD.  He suffered from gout, an ulcerated leg and obesity (only in later life).
  3. Henry only became a tyranical personality after 6 years of fighting Clement VII for permission to divorce Katherine of Aragon.  Up until that time, he was well beloved by his people.

Back to the discussion.



You are quite right on all counts. John Henry Cardinal Newman was right when he observed that the deeper one goes into history the more likely that he will reject protestantism.

I did note that many protestors were Arians but my last UM bishop was a cross between an Arian and a few other heresies. It is good to be home.



Indeed Henry Tudor Jr. WAS a junior, his father was the illegitimate English king Henry Tudor Sr. He was indeed infested with social diseases and was not loved by everyone, in fact he murdered James IV and all the good men at Flodden and was also guilty of stealing a ship. Tyrant, thief and usurper, nothing more nor less.
As a direct female line scion of J4 my feelings are strong on this matter.


Henry Tudor Jr. "Henry VIII"
By William Potter

Henry Tudor Jr. was a ruthless scoundrel
best known for the murder of his wives, his eating habits, playing
dice and being a general waste of DNA. Henry was the man responsible
for the death of James IV and the brave men at Flodden Field and was
no friend to the Scots, he was the son of the Henry Tudor the self
declared English King and Elizabeth of York the turncoat sister of
Richard III, the true King of England. Henry VIII was known not only
for his ruthlessness but also for his delusion that he was a
leader, his bad personal hygiene and the fact that his voice was
like that of a woman. Henry blessed the world with his passing on 28
January 1547 of unknown causes but rumoured to be a result of his
syphilis. Good Riddance to Henry Tudor Jr.!


Well, Potter has no agenda, now does he?
I suggest you investigate a bit further into the historical records and not rely solely on prose that supports your own predjudices.

Lady Antonia Frasier and Alison Weir have very thoroughly researched biographies in print regarding the life of Henry VIII. Pick up a copy.


You did not put the Apostle Paul up there? So I have to put other instead?


Why do you separate the Apostle Paul from the other Apostles?



Why do you not would be my question?

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.




DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit