Calling any non Roman church Protestant is distorted and unfair

[Semper_Fi_1]

I am Anglican and we find many things with Evangelical churches very off course with real early church Christianity just as Catholics do, so why should we be lumped together with all other Protestants in your eyes. I believe it is a very self centered act by the Catholic church to deny that others such as ourselves contain just as much tradition as the early church if not more. It is really sad that Catholics don’t consider us Anglicans anywhere more in the realm with themselves as lets say the Jehovas Witnesses. Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.

Because many Anglicans call themselves Protestants.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Jayda,
I respect your point. But I also respectfully disagree. The reason is your earlier response to me, that the original poster was referring to all Christians.

I like what AllForHim said just above your post:

IMHO the division God sees is people who believe in Christ and people who don’t.Believrs and unbelievers are everywhere in every denom and in every religion and in every church, temple, synogogue etc. Us humans are the ones who add all these divisions.:twocents:

So, why do I exclude Mormons and JWs. Is it because they believe in heresies that separate them from Protestants? Yes, you are right in that part. But I don’t believe it is the same type of separation that Protestants have from Catholics. It is more like the type of separation that Christians have from Jews or Muslims from Christians. Mormons and JWs, while using the name of Jesus, are not Christians in the classic sense at all. They hold to no orothodoxy. They do much more than reject the authority of the Catholic church or any other church. They reject the work of Christ itself.

Unless you think that only Catholics are Christians and all others, no matter their beliefs, are not just Protestants and non-Catholics but even non-Christians because they are not in communion with Rome, then there is a difference, a significant difference, between the type of disagreement that occurs between Protestants and Catholics and the type of disagreement I am talking about in reference to Mormons and JWs.

So which is it?
First–
Caesar posted: “Protestant” is an umbrella term that encompasses many denominations. Anyone who “protests” the authority of the Church, under the Roman Pontiff, if [sic] a Protestant.
To which I responded: Using this definition, even non-Christians would be classified as protestants. I don’t think this is what you desire to do – at least I hope not.
And you corrected: i think this person said this assuming we are already talking about Christians…

But now–You say:

but on top of this as you noted mormons and jw believe in certain heresies other protestants reject, that push them even further from the Church… but other protestants like methodists and presbyterians believe in heresies too… rejecting transubstantiation is one example.
And thus I see you grouping Mormons, JWs, and “other” (your word, not mine) Protestants including Methodists and Presbyterians into one large group as all those who simply are heretical in their beliefs.

My objection is to the lumping. Mormons and JWs are NOT Protestants, because Protestants are believers and Mormons and JWs are not. Indeed Protestants only believe that the Roman Catholic Church got off track, not that it is apostate. It was at that point that we separated ourselves so as not to continue in what we understood had become error, but still recognized that on the whole the Roman Catholic Church was indeed filled with God’s people. This is not the case with these other groups which you classify as Protestant. They see themselves as the only true believers and all others as apostate. They are not protesting anything within the Roman Catholic Church, they are flat out rejecting it as a harbinger of any sort of divine truth. To group Methodists and Presbyterians with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is the same as grouping Anglicans and Coptics with Hindus. Do you consider Moonies and Buddhists to be Protestants too? Because that is what I hear you now saying. You might as well use the term Protestant as a synonym for “Gentile” to refer to all outside the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed “Gentile” is what Mormons call anyone and everyone who is not a Mormon.

Lastly you said:

since all that is important is to know is to avoid the heresies and schisms begun by Luther, there is no further need to differenciate between them… also from a practical standpoint we would be spending more time learning about protestantism than Catholicism if we gave that level of attention to every last protestant denomination…

Well, let me suggest that perhaps one needs to give attention to the teachings of these groups before commenting on where to group them. The two that I specifically referred to have not continued in the line of “heresies and schisms begun by Luther”. They have their own unique heresies that separate them not just from Catholicism, but all of Christian teaching (Mormons believe that God was once a man and that people ultimately become gods themselves. JWs believe that Jesus is not God.) and I submit that one indeed does need to differentiate between us Protestants heretics who are Christians, and other heretics who are not.

 

[Jayda]

hola Grace Seeker,

i understand that you would like us to embrace that kind of ecumenicism… but did you consider that the people you suggest wish to disassociate yourself from… Mormons, JW etc are actually included in AllForHim’s definition of Christian? in fact so are Muslims, Baha’i, certain Hindu sects, and syncretic religions in South America… so to are the beliefs of Arius, Apollonius, Monatus, Sabellius… because there are many people who outwardly profess a “belief in Jesus”

according to the Catholic faith there are more specific definitions for belief in Jesus… while we agree with AllForHim’s idea, our next question is what do we mean by “believe in Jesus” do we mean we believe in him as a prophet? only a prophet? is he God? is he just God or just a Prophet? both? we do have to believe in what he taught according to the bible? just the bible or other sources too? what about according to the quran or book of mormon? do we have to believe in the Church he founded? what about other churchs?

these more specific questions about what “belief in Jesus” means are answered by 2000 years of infallible Church tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which teaches us that apostacy, heresy and schism can compromise our belief in Jesus in various ways… fortunately for us there is the Church and this unique connection to God who grants it authority.

that is the source of our answers to these questions… but i think you also have answers for these questions too… i think that is so for AllForHim, even though they did not specifically enumerate what “belief in Jesus” meant i think they had something more specific in mind maybe not as specific as the Church…

the problem for us is that you and AllForHim have a different standard than we do… ours is based on the guidance of the Holy Church, yours is based on your own ability to reason… which i am sure is very good, but it is not holy and does not hold the kind of authority granted to the Church…

so that is the problem… the kind of ecumenicism you are asking us to embrace means ignoring very grave heresies that create a significant block between protestants and Catholics… whether you believe the heresies and schism mormons or jw embrace to be more severe than the heresies and schism your particular denomination does not matter to the Church, because the Church teaches that heresy is heresy, and schism is schism… lesser or greater degrees are not distinguished… so from our perspective identifying which heresies each denomination believes in, to try and establish a more definite relationship between the Church and protestants beyond what already exists in the Catechism at 838…

also i think maybe you are confusing several things… apostacy is not the same as heresy and neither are the same as schism… apostates completely reject the faith, heretics reject a specifc (or several specific) things held true by the Church, and schism means rejecting the supremacy of the Holy Father, or those he is in communion with.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[cestusdei]

Is travellor just a hit and run poster? Might be nice if he would respond in his own thread.

 

[GKC]

Is travellor just a hit and run poster? Might be nice if he would respond in his own thread.

Maybe he took my advice (not what usually happens) and decided to let it pass.

To an Anglo-Catholic, the point is a non-issue, sort of like *Apostolicae Curae * (and, yes, I know a lot about Apostolicae Curae). While it might a point of discussion, it’s not a point of contention, for me. I never try to make a RC think like an Anglican.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Grace_Seeker]

hola Grace Seeker,

i think maybe you are confusing several things… apostacy is not the same as heresy and neither are the same as schism… apostates completely reject the faith, heretics reject a specifc (or several specific) things held true by the Church, and schism means rejecting the supremacy of the Holy Father, or those he is in communion with.

Then I am not confusing things. By the definition you just gave Mormons and JWs are apostate.

Why? Because they don’t believe in Jesus. They believe things about Jesus, but they don’t believe in Jesus.

As you have said, us protestants believe in Jesus. Some of the things we believe about Jesus may be different than the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but when we say that we believe in Jesus, I think we mean the very same thing that Roman Catholics believe – that is that one puts one trust in Jesus. Again Mormons and JWs don’t; they trust in their own work, not Christ’s work for salvation.

You suggest that these groups are included in AllForHim’s definition:

IMHO the division God sees is people who believe in Christ and people who don’t.Believrs and unbelievers are everywhere in every denom and in every religion and in every church, temple, synogogue etc. Us humans are the ones who add all these divisions.

I disagree with that suggestion.

Specifically I see AllForHim dividing the world into two divisions – believer and non-believer. You likewise have divided the world into two divisions – Catholic and Protestant. I submit to to you that your division is in error in two respects:

1. Catholic and Protestant does not even properly divided the Christian world, for as others have mentioned there are also Orthodox and Coptics that are Christian but neither Catholic nor Protestant.
2. In defining Protestant as anything that is non-Roman, you have grouped non-Christians in with Christians simply because they believe teachings that are contrary to those taught by the Roman Catholic Church. I agree that they do believe different things, but I argue the the order and nature of those differences is enough that using one label for them all is misleading and distorts the truth of the situation.

Indeed I suggest that ecumenism is the key, and as you have pointed out, the key to ecumenism is what one does with Christ:

From the CCC:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

What you speak of as heresies and schisms are conditions that occur within the body. There is still one body, even though it may be injured by divisions. We (you and I, a Roman Catholic and a United Methodist) are still brother and sister in Jesus Christ, just as stated in this document of the Roman Catholic Church.

But we (you and I or any other Christian) are not brother and sister with those who are outside the body of Christ. We are not brother and sister with unbelievers. We are therefore, not brother and sister with Mormons nor JWs, nor Jews, nor Muslims, nor Bahai, nor Buddhist. We may have need to be in inter-religious dialogue with them – and I do think that is a good thing. But when you and I are in dialogue, though one of us is Roman Catholic and one of us is Protestant, that is not an inter-religious dialogue; it is an intra-religious dialgoue. And this is why calling any non-Roman a Protestant is a distortion. It makes it appear that there is more closeness between Christian and unbeliever, than within the body of Christ.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Then I am not confusing things. By the definition you just gave Mormons and JWs are apostate.

Why? Because they don’t believe in Jesus. They believe things about Jesus, but they don’t believe in Jesus.

As you have said, us protestants believe in Jesus. Some of the things we believe about Jesus may be different than the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but when we say that we believe in Jesus, I think we mean the very same thing that Roman Catholics believe – that is that one puts one trust in Jesus. Again Mormons and JWs don’t; they trust in their own work, not Christ’s work for salvation.

You suggest that these groups are included in AllForHim’s definition: I disagree with that suggestion.

Specifically I see AllForHim dividing the world into two divisions – believer and non-believer. You likewise have divided the world into two divisions – Catholic and Protestant. I submit to to you that your division is in error in two respects:

1. Catholic and Protestant does not even properly divided the Christian world, for as others have mentioned there are also Orthodox and Coptics that are Christian but neither Catholic nor Protestant.
2. In defining Protestant as anything that is non-Roman, you have grouped non-Christians in with Christians simply because they believe teachings that are contrary to those taught by the Roman Catholic Church. I agree that they do believe different things, but I argue the the order and nature of those differences is enough that using one label for them all is misleading and distorts the truth of the situation.

Indeed I suggest that ecumenism is the key, and as you have pointed out, the key to ecumenism is what one does with Christ:

What you speak of as heresies and schisms are conditions that occur within the body. There is still one body, even though it may be injured by divisions. We (you and I, a Roman Catholic and a United Methodist) are still brother and sister in Jesus Christ, just as stated in this document of the Roman Catholic Church.

But we (you and I or any other Christian) are not brother and sister with those who are outside the body of Christ. We are not brother and sister with unbelievers. We are therefore, not brother and sister with Mormons nor JWs, nor Jews, nor Muslims, nor Bahai, nor Buddhist. We may have need to be in inter-religious dialogue with them – and I do think that is a good thing. But when you and I are in dialogue, though one of us is Roman Catholic and one of us is Protestant, that is not an inter-religious dialogue; it is an intra-religious dialgoue. And this is why calling any non-Roman a Protestant is a distortion. It makes it appear that there is more closeness between Christian and unbeliever, than within the body of Christ.

An awesome post, and I agree with most of it except your part on ecumenism being the key. Ecumenism is the key, but only true ecumenism, which is bringing all believers to the Fullness of the Faith (the Catholic Faith).

 

[Jayda]

hola Grace Seeker,

the kind of apostacy you are accusing mormons of is closest to what we catholics call apostasy perfidiae which is when a lay person abandons the faith. according to the Church this only occurs when somebody positively relinquishes the Christian faith and joins another, they no longer profess faith in Christ… somebody who decides to change their faith to hinduism islam or judaism would be an apostate…

the Church is equally clear that this is not the same as adopting heresies, which is the rejection of one or more revealed doctrines or dogmas. a heretic believes in something wrong, but still professes belief in Christ… heretically.

this is why we did not say Arius was an apostate, but rather a heretic when he denied the Holy Trinity, the Cathars were heretics not apostates when they confessed dualistic beliefs and Jehovahs Witness and Mormons are heretics not apostates when they deny the Holy Trinity as it is properly understood (JW believe in divine reflection, Mormons do not believe in the unity of the Father Son and Holy Spirit).

as St. Thomas Aquinas says “heresy is a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”

so… we do not accuse these people of apostasizing, as you do, we accuse them of heresy.

okay so next i’d like to point out i am not dividing the world into protestant and catholic… i am only defending the Churchs decision to not differenciate between different kinds of protestant denominations. in the Catechism it says what the relationship is between the Church and different religions and different Churchs, the only two categories of Christians the Catechism directly discusses are the Orthodox communions and everybody else… the general position is outlined that those who are included in “everybody else” do not practice the faith completely, which means they follow certain heresies, but they have a relationship with the Church since they declare a belief in Jesus (and therefore cannot be something like an apostate).

CCC:

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

i think from what you are telling me, you wish us to adopt what you deem is an ecumenical, but is in fact a Protestant, conception of apostacy, heresy and schism that would allow for us to specifically condemn people who profess a faith in Jesus Christ more imperfectly than what you or similar protestants profess… but that would only downplay the graveness of mainline protestant heresies which is unacceptable and incorrect, heresy is heresy, there is no tolerable amount of heresy for the sake of re-entering full communion.

mormons and JW are not unbelievers according to the Church… but apparently from what you are saying they are considered unbelievers according to protestants… i understand why it angers you that we do not differenciate between the two but if you feel so strongly about distinctive recognition or endorsement from the Holy Catholic Church maybe you should consider the possibility you have a deeper interest in Catholicism…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

Is travellor just a hit and run poster? Might be nice if he would respond in his own thread.

hola padre,

i think you are right, if you look at this persons posts they are all about leaving the Church, but there are no follow ups…

it is still an interesting conversation… could you perhaps provide some official illumination on this subject for us? i think the Canon is very clear about this issue but apparently not everybody agrees…

muchas gracias
Dominus Vobiscum

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Jayda, I appreciate your distinction of terms such as schism, heresy, and apostacy, and the very careful articulation of them. I think I get all of your points except this one:

mormons and JW are not unbelievers according to the Church…

So, you consider them Christian? If you do, I can see why you have said all that you have said.

I can only guess that you are not aware of their beliefs. We have perhaps pressed this too far, and I see that there are other threads that deal specifically with these two groups. But personally, I think they fail the test of heresy provided by St. Thomas Aquinas: “heresy is a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. They have not professed the faith of Christ; they have not corrupted its dogmas; they have invented their own and couched them in the language of the church, but they are and have always been decidely non-Christian of any form not Protestant, not Catholic, not Orthodox.

Are Muslims also not unbelievers according to the Roman Catholic Church? Muslims, while they deny the diety of Christ, at least worship the same God that Christians do. Mormons most certainly do not – regardless of the title they have given to themselves.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If you are a traditional Anglican why not come back to Rome. The Anglican communion isn’t a communion any more as evidence by the recent events.

This is a poor argument - because the validity of Anglicanism does not depend on its outward prosperity, any more than Rome’s does, or any other Church’s. A Church can be rent by a thousand heresies & schisms, & still be the Church. We’ve had some pretty black times ourselves - such as the Great Schism of the West, when there were two Popes for almost forty years: those troubles puts the rows in Anglicanism into perspective: there was precious little communion between the Popes in Rome, Pisa, & Spain, & their respective adherents; far from it.​

“Anglicanism started with Henry VIII”. Prior to that the Archbishops of York and Canterbury were Roman Catholic Archbishops, since they were in communion with Rome. Why not come back to the Roman Catholic Church, or does communion with the Patriarch of Rome really have a negative effect your everyday spiritual life. Follow in the footsteps of John Henry Newman.

Why not ? There are several doctrinal issues, for a start.​

Such as

• the extent of the canon
• the number of the sacraments
• Papal infallibility
• the scope of Papal jurisdiction

• to name just a few. The Orthodox don’t insist that transubstantiation is the only valid way to describe the Eucharistic Presence, so it is not immediately clear that Rome is justified in doing so. And it is not agreed whether bishops belong to the esse of the Church (as Rome says), or to the bene esse (which is the Anglican position) - that is, to the “being” or to the “well being” of the Church.

The doctrinal positions of both Churches have changed from what they were 450 years ago - too much water has gone under the bridge for a straightforward “return” to be possible or even desirable. ##

 

[GKC]

This is a poor argument - because the validity of Anglicanism does not depend on its outward prosperity, any more than Rome’s does, or any other Church’s. A Church can be rent by a thousand heresies & schisms, & still be the Church. We’ve had some pretty black times ourselves - such as the Great Schism of the West, when there were two Popes for almost forty years: those troubles puts the rows in Anglicanism into perspective: there was precious little communion between the Popes in Rome, Pisa, & Spain, & their respective adherents; far from it. ## ## Why not ? There are several doctrinal issues, for a start.​

Such as

• the extent of the canon
• the number of the sacraments
• Papal infallibility
• the scope of Papal jurisdiction

• to name just a few. The Orthodox don’t insist that transubstantiation is the only valid way to describe the Eucharistic Presence, so it is not immediately clear that Rome is justified in doing so. And it is not agreed whether bishops belong to the esse of the Church (as Rome says), or to the bene esse (which is the Anglican position) - that is, to the “being” or to the “well being” of the Church.

The doctrinal positions of both Churches have changed from what they were 450 years ago - too much water has gone under the bridge for a straightforward “return” to be possible or even desirable. ##

Hello, GoG,

One of my mantra’s again: It depends on which Anglicans you are talking to. In my neck of the woods, the episcopi are of the esse of the Church. And it’s 7 sacraments.

Anglicanism is a many splendored thing.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[LapsedAtheist]

I’m a bit late to the party, but I think it’s worth pointing out that outside of Catholicism, “Protestant” is typically a label applied only to the denominations that sprung out of Martin Luther’s protest.

Calling Anglicans “Protestant” can be construed as lumping their beliefs in with Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists and other Luther-derived denominations, while in reality there’s as big a theological divide between these denominations and the Anglican Church as there is between the Catholic and Anglican Churches.

IMO (as a non-Catholic), calling an Anglican “Protestant” is akin to calling an American “English”.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I’m a bit late to the party, but I think it’s worth pointing out that outside of Catholicism, “Protestant” is typically a label applied only to the denominations that sprung out of Martin Luther’s protest.

Calling Anglicans “Protestant” can be construed as lumping their beliefs in with Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists and other Luther-derived denominations, while in reality there’s as big a theological divide between these denominations and the Anglican Church as there is between the Catholic and Anglican Churches.

IMO (as a non-Catholic), calling an Anglican “Protestant” is akin to calling an American “English”.

I tend to agree with most of your post, one correction however. None of the various Methodist denominations are “Luther-derived”. We trace our roots back to John Wesley who was an Anglican priest.

 

[Jayda]

Jayda, I appreciate your distinction of terms such as schism, heresy, and apostacy, and the very careful articulation of them. I think I get all of your points except this one:

So, you consider them Christian? If you do, I can see why you have said all that you have said.

I can only guess that you are not aware of their beliefs. We have perhaps pressed this too far, and I see that there are other threads that deal specifically with these two groups. But personally, I think they fail the test of heresy provided by St. Thomas Aquinas: “heresy is a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. They have not professed the faith of Christ; they have not corrupted its dogmas; they have invented their own and couched them in the language of the church, but they are and have always been decidely non-Christian of any form not Protestant, not Catholic, not Orthodox.

Are Muslims also not unbelievers according to the Roman Catholic Church? Muslims, while they deny the diety of Christ, at least worship the same God that Christians do. Mormons most certainly do not – regardless of the title they have given to themselves.

hola Grace Seeker,

i am not intimately acquainted with Mormon beliefs, but they profess belief in Jesus Christ according to the scriptures and identify themselves as Christians… so their beliefs are not apostasy and they have a relationship with the Church closer than that of non Christians.

muslims are considered non christians according to the Church… the Catechism says this: 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

belief in God is not the definition of a Christian according to the Church… Jews and Muslims also believe in God, but believing in there beliefs is a matter of apostasy, not heresy or schism, because they do not believe in Christ. that is because it is a belief in Christ, however imperfect, that decides whether a person is Christian or apostate/infidel

i agree with you that mormons have failed St. Thomas Aquinas definition of heresy… for the reasons you outlined… but you still seem to confuse heresy and apostasy. these are separate things that very often are related but do not have to be. the mormons, like the Arians, call themselves Christians but practice heresies… the Canon does not condemn them.

i am concerned that you might be reading some of your strong private feelings about mormons into the language of the Canon and Catechism… neither of which calls mormons apostates or accuses their beliefs of amounting to apostasy… definitely heresy, like all protestants, but not apostasy… perhaps this is just one additional thing you do not agree with the Church about…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Cam-masta]

I’ve been reading responses…very interesting. I was raised as an Anglican in the so-called “via media” - middle position. I remember going to a lecture, given by a Marian priest years ago, and he made a comment about Anglicans being Protestant. Well, that didn’t go over too well with my dad (who is an Anglican minister), and he protested, ironically, at such a suggestion. Indeed, this topic is very sensitive for many well meaning Christians.

Personally, I believe Anglicans are Protestants due to the reasons you have all listed - denial of Papal Infallibility, confusion on the teaching of the Eucharist from the high to low positions, and more recently the confrontation of whether homosexual acts are “sacramental” or not. I fail to see how calling those who have separated themselves from Rome, Protestants…“distorted and unfair”. As many people have more or less indicated, reality bites. It is necessary to admit our differences in charity, for there are indeed many differences. That is the first step to reconciliation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am Anglican and we find many things with Evangelical churches very off course with real early church Christianity just as Catholics do, so why should we be lumped together with all other Protestants in your eyes. I believe it is a very self centered act by the Catholic church to deny that others such as ourselves contain just as much tradition as the early church if not more. It is really sad that Catholics don’t consider us Anglicans anywhere more in the realm with themselves as lets say the Jehovas Witnesses. Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.

Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan, in his book called Protestantism, also includes Anglicans as Protestant.

It is probabaly because Anglicans have embraced soem distinctively Protestant doctrines, like *Sola Scriptura. *

From the Anglican *Articles of Religion:*VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
And because of the distinctively Protestant doctrine of *Faith alone…*from the *Articles of Religion, *XI, which says: “we are justified by Faith only.”

 

[GKC]

Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan, in his book called Protestantism, also includes Anglicans as Protestant.

It is probabaly because Anglicans have embraced soem distinctively Protestant doctrines, like *Sola Scriptura. *

From the Anglican *Articles of Religion:*VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.
And because of the distinctively Protestant doctrine of *Faith alone…*from the *Articles of Religion, *XI, which says: “we are justified by Faith only.”

This is one I have to explain a lot. The 39 Articles are binding on absolutely no Anglicans, except, in a technical sense, the ordinands of the Church of England (since the CoE is an Erastian church, they are sort of civil servants, and can get told things like that. Of course, in truth, not even the CoE clergy are of one mind about the Articles).

The Articles are not a form of Anglican Confession, and Anglicanism is not sola scriptura. Trust me.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Jayda,

Thanks for continuing the dialog. It seems I still do not understand the definition of apostasy afterall. Would you mind clarifying that some more?

Muslims also profess belief in Christ. I know you know that, but of course Muslims mean something completely different from what either you or I mean by that. But, yet, Muslims are considered non-Christians by the Roman Catholic Church. This is why I keep saying what I do about Mormons. I believe the canon does condemn them. They claim belief in Christ, but what they mean by it has about as much in common with Christianity as Islam does. In truth, though they use the name of Christ, the do not actually believe in Christ anymore than other non-Christians do.

You are correct, I feel strongly about it – though not about Mormonism per se, but about anyone calling something Christian that isn’t. I believe it leads to confusion, and thus keeps people from coming to faith in Christ.
According to Joseph Smith own testimony of the origin of the Mormon faith, it comes directly by revelation

[speaking to the angel Moroni] I was answered that I must join none of them [any existing church], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This is canonized scripture for Mormons.

They claim to accept the Trinity in the statements they make about their faith to the general public, but this what they teach about the nature of God with one another:

Lorenzo Snow received a personal revelation about the destiny of mankind that the Prophet Joseph Smith later confirmed as true. Lorenzo related: “The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet, which expresses the revelation, as it was shown to me … : As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be” (quoted in LeRoi C. Snow, “Devotion to a Divine Inspiration,” Improvement Era, June 1919, 656).

This material is directly from a Mormon website used to teach about their faith, not some group attacking them. Mormons believe that God has a physical body (and a physical consort in heaven), and that people will one day themselves be gods.

And the key: What do Mormons teach regarding faith in Christ?

Faith in Christ is a gift of God obtained through belief, obedience, and righteous works.
When you believe the principles of the Gospel and attain unto faith, which is a gift of God, he adds more faith, adding faith to faith. If we speak of faith in the abstract, it is the power of God by which the worlds are and were made, and is a gift of God to those who believe and obey his commandments. On the other hand, no living, intelligent being, whether serving God or not, acts without belief. He might as well undertake to live without breathing as to live without the principle of belief. But he must believe the truth, obey the truth, and practice the truth, to obtain the power of God called faith (DBY, 153).

However, salvation is acheived not by faith, but by ritual and works: “And as many as repent and are baptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and endure to the end, the same shall be saved.” (Doctrine and Covenants, section 18, verse 22) Don’t be fooled by religious sounding terms, “repentance” and “baptism” in Mormonish don’t mean anything close to what you think of when you use those terms. In fact, even Jesus Christ is a different person, in one place the “only begotten” Son of God, but in another one of many spirit children God procreated in heaven before they were then sent to earth to earn their salvation.

Now in your book is that orthodoxy? heresy? or apostasy?

 

[mark_a]

It is really sad that Catholics don’t consider us Anglicans anywhere more in the realm with themselves as lets say the Jehovas Witnesses. Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.

My guess is that if you all get maybe 8 or 10 centuries of unity under your belts, you will get what you are asking for.

But it’s just too hard to figure out who’s who. How could we possibly know the Anglican “tree” and which branch an Anglican is part of?

Anyway, there are a few (real deal Catholic) Anglican Rite use parishes around the country. How do you compare with them? Is everything pretty much “Catholic” except for the pope thing?

There’s a sola fide debate between John Martignoni and a (former Catholic) Anglican minister on biblechristiansociety.com. The debate is pretty good. But the Anglican minister could not possibly sound more protestant.

I’ve never had an Anglican (of any stripe, to my knowledge) approach me with hatred toward Catholicism.

How 'bout we Catholics agree to stop bleeding England dry and let Henry VIII marry whoever he wants, and you guys agree to shut Elton John up? Then can we get back to normal?