I do not understand mainstream Protestants.

[Newbie2]

I’m sorry. I guess I should have been more specific. The Lutheran churches were formed in response to Luther’s teaching, according to The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. And, the Lutheran Churches do use Luther’s Catechisms.

Exactomundo.

 

[JonNC]

=Alexander Roman;7156725]
By and large, the High Church movement within Protestantism is a return to the “Reformed Catholick” traditions of the early founders. Henry VIII broke from Rome but was never Protestant. He kept his rosary (a very ornate decima) on his belt and said it always. He was later very keen on priestly celibacy etc. Anglicanism was always a kind of “roof over all” including High Church and Low Church Anglicans. King Charles I was a High Church Anglican who took off his hat and bowed at the Names of Jesus and Mary.

Martin Luther and other Lutheran leaders always carried their rosaries with them and Luther’s devotion to Mary, including her images, was well-known. American Lutherans today simply reject this part of their Lutheran heritage (unless they are High Church, for then they will often say their rosaries too!).

It seems that the early break with the papacy by Anglicans and Lutherans was mainly over certain points of doctrine (and politics) that affected little of their Catholic heritage. This was slowly removed over the centuries with the High Church movement springing it back in the 19th century and until today. The High Church movement saw their Churches primarily as “reform movements.” Today, those Anglicans and Lutherans who take this seriously, have also come to the conclusion that their churches are moving further away from their Catholic heritage and this is why there is a movement toward actual union with Rome on various levels, including the Anglican Ordinariates (although not all Anglicans who want to come “home to Rome” agree with the Anglican Ordinariates, for one reason or another, but that is another topic).

There are other groups, like the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church which has formally accepted the Catholic Catechism and has petitioned Rome to accept them into union with it (their goal is to create a church with a “Lutheran cultural background” to help other Lutherans join the Catholic Church). No word as yet from Rome on this (they display Luther’s Rose in their parishes, have Eucharistic Adoration and also display pictures of the local Roman Catholic bishop and of the Pope even though they are not in full formal union with Rome. . . ).

This is a rather accurate statement, Alex.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

The thread has barely gone where I wanted it to. I take responsibility. Lets try it this way:

1, the Catholic/Oriental, Eastern Orthodox could be correct

1. The Bible provides the teachings and the source of our beliefs. As I have stated on here before, this is my view that the teachings of much of the Ante Nicene teachings match with my views but that many of the proto-Orthodox teachings, as scholars refer to it as, result from the larger church which did not continue the teachings of the apostles. These group of churches consider themselves and their practices a continuation of apostolic practice found in scripture.

3, The Bible is not literal. It is mythology that conveys an important truth(small t) and can be interpreted and followed to support social justice policies. Think United Church of Christ.

Okay I obviously get that people wanted to, for some reason, to argue which of the three views are correct but thats not the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to establish that three viable options exist and that those who adhere to any form of scripture and tradition are really just picking and chosing.

As far as the comments about the Trinity not being found in scripture or the beliefs that the church needed councils to recognize the canon has been discussed by me in other threads. Independent sola scriptura Christians do not believe that the Church causes the canon but that because God is the author of scripture, Christians recognize scripture and I believe that the evidence, particular codexes indicates that prior to 400 AD most of the canon was recognized prior to any council. But lets not go that route, try to actually address my point about this fourth option of Protestants who pick apart part of Catholicism but keep some parts.

thanks

 

[Rightlydivide]

Who decides what is “mainstream”?

Normal nomenclature applies sir, for simplicity purposes and it is best to assume normal usage and application
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_(Protestant

 

[Rightlydivide]

How do you know that Sola Scriptura is correct? Jesus never said that and it is not found anywhere in the bible. A lot of Catholic holydays/holidays are part of the secular culture; almost everyone gets Christmas day off, businesses still close on Good Friday and you can find (St.) Valentines and wear green on Saint Patricks Day; plenty of non-Catholics receive ashes on Ash Wednesday. I know small independent churches that use the Sunday readings from the Catholic liturgical calendar and have added Saturday night services because they are hoping to attract the Catholic crowd to their church.

What made you think the purpose of the thread of this thread is to establish if Sola Scriptura is correct? We have around 50 of those to pick from. This is a different topic, is it not?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Than why would you not be a part of the Church if you already realize this?

Describing an option, like the third one as well, does not denote you agree with them but recognize them as valid options. Why would you think listing a viable option means you agree with it?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Hmm personally I do not understand fundementalists, who seem to shun tradition one moment then fall back on it without realizing it.

Anglicans in particular are not true “Sola Scriptura” neither are Methodists. Their position is better described as Prima Scriptura. They rely on tradition to a certain degree, mostly interpret the Bible where it may be unclear. They will not throw out ancient tradition just because they are not explicitly found in the Bible, provided they do not contradict Bible teaching. We are not too far off from Catholics.

I have alot of respect for Catholicism. The reason I am Anglican/Episcopal is that I can embrace the good that comes from both Catholic and Protestant traditions.

 

[dianaiad]

Who decides what is “mainstream”?

Good question!

I would say…"mainstream’ is decided by majority vote; “mainstream” is the belief that the most people in an area believe in.

So…Catholicism and orthodox (little “o”) Christianity would be mainstream Christianity if you are talking about the planet, or most areas in which Christianity is found.

However…not all areas are inhabited by the global ‘mainstream.’ In Utah, for instance, Mormonism would be the mainstream version of Christianity. Whether anybody else likes that or not.

Now this does not speak at all to the accuracy of mainstream thought, mind you. After all, Jesus Christ Himself was most definitely NOT 'mainstream."

 

[Lutheranteach]

Every time I read a thread like this it just stresses to me that while Catholics will often say that protestants have biases and misconceptions toward Catholics, it’s very definitely a two way street. The biggest issue when I hear arguments about protestantism is that many Catholics want to start that debate from a jumping off point that protestants do not and will not agree with. I am very thankful there is a protestant tradition because if I had to pick Catholic or no church attendance it would be a tough call.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Every time I read a thread like this it just stresses to me that while Catholics will often say that protestants have biases and misconceptions toward Catholics, it’s very definitely a two way street. The biggest issue when I hear arguments about protestantism is that many Catholics want to start that debate from a jumping off point that protestants do not and will not agree with. I am very thankful there is a protestant tradition because if I had to pick Catholic or no church attendance it would be a tough call.

If Jesus Christ transformed your life from the muck and dirt of your own sins and through his gift of salvation made you inot something completely different that the joy of the Holy Spirit pulses through you, you would have a hard tiime between worshipping Jesus with things you disagree and no attendance?
I absolutely do not understand that. Christ can be worshipped anywhere but in His scripture we know that we are to attend church. While I disagree with Catholics on many issues, we worship the same God and Jesus and as a corporate body of believers we are told to be in fellowship.
No attendance is not an option in scripture.
I feel very strongly about what you just said as you can tell.

 

[Beth0018]

Ok, as a mainstream Protestant, I’d like to add in my opinion.

I (we) believe in a literal interpertation of the Bible, however, that does not mean that there is no deeper symbolism within the message. And that is what our (United Methodist) church teaches. Yes, our traditional service quotes John Wesley some, but it’s more about the Bible in it’s context than quoting a preacher. And even more than that, we recognize that despite any and all differences in what we believe in the translation from person to person and denomination to denomation, that we still are all part of the same body of Christ. *That we once a person becomes saved in Him, it doesn’t matter what denomation he or she is, because he or she is part of the body of Christ. *We say the apostle’s creed, but when we say “the Catholic chuch” we mean “catholic” by it’s literal Greek translation: “universal”. And we partake in the Eurcharst because it is Biblical, however, in this, we do see symbolism: that the bread and well use grape juice are symbolic of the of the body and of the blood. We celebrate Christmas and Good Friday and Easter not because they are “Catholic” holidays but because we are rejoicing in the fact that our Savior has come.

My intent in this was not to bash Catholicism, on the contary, I came to this site to learn and grow in my faith, but that doesn’t mean that simply because I’m not Catholic that I’m not redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and therefor am not part of the body of Christ.

So my question to leave you with is, if we are truly to be a catholic (universal) church, how can any of us do it, if we simply look at another denomation and point fingers?

 

[Jestocost]

I can see where it would be confusing from where you stand, but it really isn’t from this side. You think of yourself as having rejected all of the Church’s Traditions, but in reality, there are many you have kept. The Trinity, the cannon of Scripture, Sunday worship, etc. None of those are very explicit in the bible.

The Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. have just rejected fewer of the Traditions than you have.