S
sambos671
Guest
Primarily because they disagree with each other. Pretty simple really.
How long did it take for denominations to split and divide after their creation by men?
- Status
S
sambos671
Guest
Keep in mind many protestants believe in an invisible church that is unified. You will hear statements like: “it doesn’t matter what denomination you are if you are born again” Some will even include catholics in this.
H
Harpazo
Guest
That very idea frightens me. It sounds very New Age-ish. Almost like when Hindus or Buddhists say it doesn’t matter what you religion you belong to, as long as you do X then you’re fine. Or as some will believe that all religions lead to one place. We as orthodox Catholics know this to be wrong.
Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
S
sambos671
Guest
I’m not saying I agree. However, I didn’t state the stipulation. They have to believe in these things to be the “real” church:
Pretty much everything in the apostles creed except for the RCC understanding of Catholic and RCC understanding of communion of saints.
Mormons, Jehovahs witnesses, and the like are out.
Also that the scriptures are the inspired word of God.
Evidence of true faith is seen in good works. I didn’t get into that aspect. Of course there are protestants who believe that they have the ultimate truth and every one else is going to burn (so to speak) I was being simplistic. I did want to say all religions are acceptable to protestants. Some believe just the “mainline” ones.
S
swariffin
Guest
- Paul does not agree with you, unless you don’t believe in Paul (2 Thess 2:15).
- Works without faith do not save, I agree with you. Faith without works is dead, the bible expressedly said so (James 2:17). If you are a sola scripturist, you must admit that. In this case, taking the bible we need Faith AND Works. So, it is no longer Sola Fide.
- God Grace indeed iS the fundamental thing for salvation. But, God grace does not guarantee you salvation IF you REJECT it. So, human acts to freely accept God grace is also needed. Take the analogy of clapping your hand. You cannot do hand clapping by a single hand only. If you reject God, will you still be saved?
- Christ (in His all broad meaning/capacity) is the only way, I absolutely agree with you. Mary and all Saints bring us closer to Jesus, together with our own effort, in one single community which is called “Ecclesia”. Without Jesus, Mary and all those saints are meaningless. So, make sure you understand what intercession really means, not based on your self definition.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
How do they do that ? I think the question implies that they see themselves as a Catholic might see them: IOW, as not having a defencible position over against the CC. But that is not their position, because it implies that the CC is “in the right” & that they are “in the wrong”. Which is not their position at all. Far from thinking any such thing, quite a few are very clear that the CC is the party “in the wrong”.
Protestantism is far more than a protest against Rome; positively, it is - at least in origin & still in several of its forms - a bearing witness to certain positions Rome had overlooked; that is what “pro” + “testari” means. If we think of it as no more than a negation of Catholic things, we will misunderstand it completely. That was true even 50 years ago.It is very “Catholic” in some ways, “catholic” in others; but it can’t be decanted into a Catholic matrix without being changed; it is not, at bottom, concerned with Catholicism at all: Catholicism is not as important as that - God & the Gospel of God are. The “protest against” Rome is a consequence of the difference between what Rome & Protestantism “witness to”.
That could be taken as a - back-handed - acknowledgement that the Apostles were Protestants 
. As Unitatis Redintegratio reminds us:
- Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
Nevertheless,…
- [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html)
Protestantism, however little some may like it, is anything but the first split from the CC. A more uncomfortable question might be: how (given your reasoning) can Christianity (especially its Catholic variety) claim to be “sanctioned by God”
?
R
ralphinal
Guest
But Sola means alone. You cannot be saved by faith alone and grace alone. It is like having three lone gunmen or three lone rangers. Alone is alone, together is not alone.Of course, both go together. That is also why they are mentioned togetherThey compliment eachother. If someone is too daft to catch the meaning of the first “sola”, it gets across during the second.
C
Contarini
Guest
But it’s a rather anachronistic question, because the whole notion of “denominations” didn’t develop till some time later. No one was trying to start a denomination. The “Reformers” were trying to reform the Catholic Church. The “radicals” were trying to restore the true Church which they believed had been destroyed.Okay, what is the answer to the question? Leave out if people who call themselves Baptists, Pentecostal or other any other church can be counted as Protestant or not. How quickly did the different denominations split from the first Lutheran Church? Its an interesting question and I am not certain why it would offend anyone.
When do you first consider “Lutheranism” a separate Church? Arguably not until 1530, with the Augsburg Confession. But Luther had been excommunicated back in 1521. And throughout the 1520s various regions and cities within Germany had introduced changes in how the Church in those regions functioned in order to conform with Luther’s teachings and those of his colleagues. These regions and cities had protested in 1529 against being told to stop these changes, and this is where the word “Protestant” comes from.
Meanwhile, one big split had opened up within the “reforming” camp–between Luther (backed by the northern Germans) and Zwingli (backed by the Swiss and less enthusiastically by many southern Germans). This split took several years to develop, but was formalized when the two sides failed to agree at Marburg in 1529.
And at the same time you had lots of “radicals” of various sorts running around throughout the 1520s promulgating (without state backing for the most part) more extreme versions (at least more extreme in certain respects–in other ways they were very medieval) of Luther’s and Zwingli’s teachings. This I suspect is where the figure of “hundreds of sects” comes from.
The 1520s is often called the period of “wild growth” for the Reformation. It was a time of great chaos, and this chaos convinced the “mainstream” Reformers that they needed to pay more attention to questions of authority and organization. Starting in the 1530s, you began to see more organized forms of Protestantism, and gradually we can start to talk about “confessions” (or, if you must have it, “denominations,” though that’s really a term better reserved for the American context and similar situations where there is complete freedom of religion).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Don’t you think Protestants should be allowed to define their own terms?
One might just as reasonably say that if the Pope is “infallible” then he must be incapable of any kind of error whatsoever, and that anything else is contradictory. Theological terms are often used in very specialized ways. Understanding this is key to having a serious discussion across the borders that divide Christians.
The “sola” in these formulas functions in a very specialized sense. Just how specialized depends on which Protestants you ask! But it can be broadly said to mean that there is something that faith or Scripture does that nothing else can do. (In the case of “sola fide” this is particularly obvious, because the form is clearly ablative, meaning “by faith alone”–“sola scriptura” and “sola gratia” could be either nominative or ablative.)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
If you insist in using language in this way, it’s hard to have a conversation with people who disagree with you.
And by the way, are Catholics “orthodox” by your definition? If not, does this mean that they are not Christians?
I’m not disputing that there’s such a thing as orthodoxy. (I would no doubt define it more broadly than you would.) I’m questioning the usefulness of saying just “Protestants” when you mean “orthodox Protestants.” Obviously Catholics disagree with your definition of orthodoxy. When they say “Protestants” they therefore do not mean “orthodox Protestants,” but churches deriving from the Reformation in general.
Edwin
R
ralphinal
Guest
I have no issue with different faiths and denominations defining their own terms. I guess that I have never seen the word explained as anything other than “alone” by Protestants or Catholics. I guess I am confused about why use a word to mean alone and use the same word to mean not alone in the same or similar context. Obviously, even Protestants disagree on exactly what these terms mean.
I guess my main problem is that by simplifying the doctrines to a cute little answer, you confuse things more than clear it up. FOr instance, if I asked what a Methodist believed or a Anglican, I would get a longer answer. I know that it is almost impossible to say what 100% of all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians believe in a short space, but there has to be a more clear way of doing it.
C
Contarini
Guest
Luther was excommunicated in 1521, so that’s a fair date to use even apart from Worms. However, one can question whether there was a “denomination” in place at that point. What would that mean, practically?
Same with Muntzer. Muntzer did introduce his own liturgy in the church where he was the priest, and he certainly began teaching things that were very different both from Luther and from orthodox Catholicism. So I don’t in principle disagree with you. I’m just concerned about the anachronistic picture of “denominations,” which really doesn’t make sense in a sixteenth-century context.
And of course that’s just two groups at that point. (But in the next few years things got a lot more complicated. Do you count the Zwickau Prophets as a separate group? Grebel’s bunch in Zurich? Hubmaier’s early activities in Waldshut? How do you decide if these are all the same or not? Reublin, one of Grebel’s associates, baptized Hubmaier–does that make them the same “denomination”? Grebel and his friends wrote a letter to Muntzer treating him as a brother in Christ but disagreeing with some things he was doing–how do you define that relationship?
**
there were over 200 splits.
**
Maybe, depending on how you define it. Raw numbers like that don’t mean anything without names and contexts.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Very true. I think the use of the “five Solas” as a slogan is a really bad idea. Anglicans and Methodists (the two Protestant traditions with which I have some connection) are less likely to do this. But some people choose to do it, and that’s their concern!
Edwin
R
ralphinal
Guest
In fact, I think that it hurts the idea of dialog to assume that all Protestants beleive things in common. The most productive dialog seems to come one denomination to another (or the Catholic or Orthodox Church). In that way, the terms can be clear from the beginning.
In fact, I think that one reason that there have been so many divisions is because of the lack of clearly defined terms. FOr instance, many see sola scriptura as working within a denomination. Final authority, yes, but it must be understood within a context. Bible alone is different. Once you get sola scriptura, why is your scriptura better than mine?
D
deb1
Guest
Thank you! Whether the OP was bashing Protestants or not, his question made me curious as to the answer. You answered it well.
E
elvisman
Guest
Luther was excommunicated in 1521, so that’s a fair date to use even apart from Worms. However, one can question whether there was a “denomination” in place at that point. What would that mean, practically?
Same with Muntzer. Muntzer did introduce his own liturgy in the church where he was the priest, and he certainly began teaching things that were very different both from Luther and from orthodox Catholicism. So I don’t in principle disagree with you. I’m just concerned about the anachronistic picture of “denominations,” which really doesn’t make sense in a sixteenth-century context.
And of course that’s just two groups at that point. (But in the next few years things got a lot more complicated. Do you count the Zwickau Prophets as a separate group? Grebel’s bunch in Zurich? Hubmaier’s early activities in Waldshut? How do you decide if these are all the same or not? Reublin, one of Grebel’s associates, baptized Hubmaier–does that make them the same “denomination”? Grebel and his friends wrote a letter to Muntzer treating him as a brother in Christ but disagreeing with some things he was doing–how do you define that relationship?
**
Maybe, depending on how you define it. Raw numbers like that don’t mean anything without names and contexts.
Edwin**
I see what you’re saying - I really do.
**I guess “splinters” or “sub-groups” might be a better way of describing the separations. **
In any case, they did splinter apart.
- Status