I do not understand mainstream Protestants.

[Rightlydivide]

I see a few choices
The Catholic/Orthodox churches are the continuation of the church established by Christ as well as a few other possibililities like the Oriental Orthodox etc

The Church should follow the Bible only as God’s directives for the church and Sola Scriptura is correct. Along those lines I understand this lumps Independent Fundamentalists with the Churches of Christ and even the JW’s. But I understant this view.

I also understand being a liberal who thinks it is all metaphorical etc. I dont like it but I get it

I do not get all of the churches that are not Catholic but use Catholic holidays, Catholic church services etc or are not sola scriptura. IE Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.

So in other words, I get the other three options but not people who embrace Catholicism but it seems only select parts.
Just a new discussion topic. See what people think.

 

[pigtown]

I think a lot of it has to do with the break-aways from the Catholic Church. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest before he started his own church (Lutheran). They keep what they like and do away with what they don’t like or disagree with.

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
I know I will get a few enemys by this,I mean,this a free forum,but from my point of wiew aswell as my faith as a catholic is to understand other christians and don’t judge them. I am a former Lutheranian,and converted because I found both truth and stronger faith in the Church I now serve as a member and thru my prayers. I have a strong call to priesthood,and that wos the other reason for converting to catholic faith,but I wos stupid and got marriage,now I am divorced and live in selibacy and using my call to prayers and to help where I can. But to the point. We shall not judge other churches,as Jesus said,“those who are whit us are not against us”. By keeping that in mind I can show my faith and love to the Catholic Church by not beeing against other churches. Maybe I do wrong in your eyes,but since I feel that by beeing polite and not against other faiths I am doing what Jesus said,“those who are whit us are not against us”. You may be angry at me for not saying all other churches are wrong,well,then be. I sleep good knowing I follow what Jesus asked me to do one day a long long time ago,and I sleep well also by letting others live their faith while I do as the Catholic Church teaches. Comments? I can’t wait. One moore thing,we shall not judge other religions,that is not our thing to do. By beeing polite,understanding and stand tall like men among men as catholics we do the thing we are supposed to do,love,and where there is love,there Jesus is.

 

[JustaServant]

Who decides what is “mainstream”?

 

[FaustinaClare]

The other denominations that we call “Catholic Light”, i.e. Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc. basically broke away from the Catholic Church over one disagreement or another but agreed with the rest of the teachings. Luther didn’t like the political corruptness of the Church Hierarchy among other things and decided to purify the church by getting rid of all that but kept most of the teachings as true…since they were.

Their leaders were unfortunately very prideful and thought they knew better than the Mother Church and the Holy Spirit. You would think if the Catholic Church is right about 99% of its teachings it is right about everything but no, they did not believe this. They pick and chose what they wanted to believe to suit their needs and it just went down hill after that. There are more protestant denominations every year.

A few church members get mad b/c the preacher doesn’t do what they want so they break off and form another denomination until someone gets mad at them and breaks off.

Quite ridiculous if you ask me. I know, I used to be one of them

 

[Catholic1954]

I see a few choices
The Catholic/Orthodox churches are the continuation of the church established by Christ as well as a few other possibililities like the Oriental Orthodox etc

The Church should follow the Bible only as God’s directives for the church and Sola Scriptura is correct. Along those lines I understand this lumps Independent Fundamentalists with the Churches of Christ and even the JW’s. But I understant this view.

I also understand being a liberal who thinks it is all metaphorical etc. I dont like it but I get it

I do not get all of the churches that are not Catholic but use Catholic holidays, Catholic church services etc or are not sola scriptura. IE Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.

So in other words, I get the other three options but not people who embrace Catholicism but it seems only select parts.
Just a new discussion topic. See what people think.

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.

 

[JHow]

Who decides what is “mainstream”?

Isn’t “mainstream” just shorthand for the most common things? That is, aren’t the “mainstream” protestant denominations simply the largest ones?

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I agree I don’t understand them either.

Lets see the Protestant movement has the right core idea they gave us the Bible in the language of the everyday person, started with the noblest of theological ideas that no person should be betwwen the Christian and God and that faith is the key to salavation not works.

Then ,um, they replaced the Pope with Pastor Generals and their subordinates and councils of humans that decided what God meant and wants getting between the Christian and God. Might as well say clergy the samed darn way that Catholics had with fewer layers but still as bad.

My only view is will I ,as a Christian Anarchist, that puts God first and in my reflections trusting in the love of God and the mercy of the Father through Christ’s blood and sacrifice have eternal life? Or is that alone not enough? For me both sides the Catholic (Orthodox) and Protestants muck up what for me is a very simple truth that is not complicated.

 

[JustaServant]

I agree I don’t understand them either.

Lets see the Protestant movement has the right core idea they gave us the Bible in the language of the everyday person, started with the noblest of theological ideas that no person should be betwwen the Christian and God and that faith is the key to salavation not works.

Then ,um, they replaced the Pope with Pastor Generals and their subordinates and councils of humans that decided what God meant and wants getting between the Christian and God. Might as well say clergy the samed darn way that Catholics had with fewer layers but still as bad.

My only view is will I ,as a Christian Anarchist, that puts God first and in my reflections trusting in the love of God and the mercy of the Father through Christ’s blood and sacrifice have eternal life? Or is that alone not enough? For me both sides the Catholic (Orthodox) and Protestants muck up what for me is a very simple truth that is not complicated.

Could you start a new thread (so as not to derail this one) explaining what a 'christian anarchist is?
I seriously have never heard of that before.

 

[fhansen]

I see a few choices
The Catholic/Orthodox churches are the continuation of the church established by Christ as well as a few other possibililities like the Oriental Orthodox etc

The Church should follow the Bible only as God’s directives for the church and Sola Scriptura is correct. Along those lines I understand this lumps Independent Fundamentalists with the Churches of Christ and even the JW’s. But I understant this view.

I also understand being a liberal who thinks it is all metaphorical etc. I dont like it but I get it

I do not get all of the churches that are not Catholic but use Catholic holidays, Catholic church services etc or are not sola scriptura. IE Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.

So in other words, I get the other three options but not people who embrace Catholicism but it seems only select parts.
Just a new discussion topic. See what people think.

But there are other doctrines or teachings that most non-mainstream denominations have also accepted from Catholicism, matters that scripture alone would have a hard time proving, such as the canon of the NT itself or the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[JustaServant]

Isn’t “mainstream” just shorthand for the most common things? That is, aren’t the “mainstream” protestant denominations simply the largest ones?

MMMMmmmmm…I suppose so. But that word is thrown around many times to marginalize instead of describe. I’ve heard Catholics who attend a Latin Mass being referred to by the same vocabulary. In fundamentalist terminology “mainstream”=liberal.

 

[simspt]

I see a few choices
The Catholic/Orthodox churches are the continuation of the church established by Christ as well as a few other possibililities like the Oriental Orthodox etc

The Church should follow the Bible only as God’s directives for the church and Sola Scriptura is correct. Along those lines I understand this lumps Independent Fundamentalists with the Churches of Christ and even the JW’s. But I understant this view.

I also understand being a liberal who thinks it is all metaphorical etc. I dont like it but I get it

I do not get all of the churches that are not Catholic but use Catholic holidays, Catholic church services etc or are not sola scriptura. IE Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.

So in other words, I get the other three options but not people who embrace Catholicism but it seems only select parts.
Just a new discussion topic. See what people think.

One thing they all have in common is that they take for granted the decisions the Catholic Church made with its earlier judgements concerning issues like the canon and development of doctrines.

 

[JHow]

…But that word is thrown around many times to marginalize instead of describe. I’ve heard Catholics who attend a Latin Mass being referred to by the same vocabulary. In fundamentalist terminology “mainstream”=liberal.

You bring up a good point. There can be a perjorative use, as in its devolved form “lamestream”, which I often encounter as “lamestream media”.

 

[rben20]

I see a few choices
The Catholic/Orthodox churches are the continuation of the church established by Christ as well as a few other possibililities like the Oriental Orthodox etc…

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

 

[Roy5]

Generally speaking - and generalizations are risky - mainstream Protestants are ‘big tent’ Protestants. They welcome a wide variety of views. Some, such as the Episcopalians and Lutherans, recite traditional creeds, but if you have attended Bible studies in their churches they usually emphasize the Protestant principle of individual interpretation. If you have ten in such a study group, you may have a variety of views on a large number of Biblical stories and verses. And everybody listens with interest even if they disagree. Lively but amiable discussions ensue.

  Among Methodists, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ (and some others, like Quakers) there are less similarities to Catholicism (usually) when it comes to liturgy and perhaps even doctrine. Methodists like to quote John Wesley, himself rather traditional, who said "think and let think" and "if you love God as I love God, let us join hands" - or words to that effect. (I can't recall the precise quote). 

  These mainstream Protestants have been heavily influenced by an outlook that rejects Biblical literalism, which is to say that they regard scripture as instructive and inspiration but not always to be taken literally. Few would believe in an historic Adam and Eve, for example - or the details of Noah and the flood (though they may grant must have been a huge flood in the ancient mideast).  Some would even regard some of the miracles of Jesus as questionable - evidence that he was truly the Son of God in a special way, perhaps, but more symbolic than historic. Did Jesus walk on water? Did he cast demons out of people and direct them into pigs who rushed over a cliff? Did he raise the dead? Different opinions on such matters are permitted. 

  But back to their main thrust. They welcome Christians of various theological views, stressing the teaching of Christ that we love God and love one another. Love is the real heart of true religion and not liturgy or sacraments or theology, even though mainline churches often certainly include these as well. 

  Mainline Protestants also are likely to be very ecumenical and involved in councils of churches - World, National, state, city, etc. They disagree with Catholicism but are happy to cooperate with Catholics on various worthy projects. They disagree with fundamentalist Protestants but are pleased to cooperate with them as well. They disagree with those who claim that there is only one true faith and theirs is that one. They are respectful of other faiths, even non-Christian faiths, as long as they are not severe, arrogant, accusatory, and bigoted. Narrow-mindedness troubles them.

  I have found that mainstream Protestants range from evanglicals (light?) to quasi-Unitarians. Nearly every mainstream church has a mix who generally manage to get along fine despite their differences. In some cases they are more likely to get upset over which color to paint the church kitchen than over doctrinal differences that often divide more evangelical churches and have alienated many free-thinking Catholics from their church.

 

[Newbie2]

I think a lot of it has to do with the break-aways from the Catholic Church. Remember, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest before he started his own church (Lutheran). They keep what they like and do away with what they don’t like or disagree with.

Martin Luther did not start his own church.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

This is really a very insightful question and thread.

Anglicans and Lutherans are often difficult to pin down for a coherent set of practices (they will sometimes argue over what they believe beyond the Augsburg Confession and how they interpret the 39 articles of religion).

The “High Church” movement has affected not only Anglicans and Lutherans, but also Presbyterians (whose High Church branch actually practices auricular confession) and Methodism.

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. . . ).

Methodism is something I’ve a lot of time for because of its emphasis on holiness via the great men of God, John and Charles Wesley.

John Wesley wrote a rule of life for Methodists that included one to three hours of prayer, morning and night, observance of the Apostolic hours at nine, noon and three in the afternoon, fasting, reading of the Scriptures, frequent reception of Communion, charitable works etc. Wesley also promoted the reading of the Church Fathers. Today, there is actually a Methodist religious Order of St Luke that prays seven times a day etc. I think all Catholics should be as faithful to their spiritual practices in the spirit of John Wesley!

So I think it is a matter of time before these three great Protestant denominations will, once again, find a home in formal union with the Catholic Church. Roman and Eastern Catholics will be the better for having them!!

Alex

 

[pigtown]

Martin Luther did not start his own church.

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.

 

[Roy5]

The Order of St. Luke is a very small group with little influence within Methodism, though it tries to influence seminaries and with some success. It bends toward Anglicanism. Generally, Methodists I know feel closer to Congregationalists and Presbyterians than to Anglicans - with the exception of those who mirror the views of the Order of St. Luke. These are mainly clergy.

** In Canada and Australia, the Methodists have united with Congregationalists and Presbyterians**. If you watched “God in America” on PBS last night you realize that American Methodism departed from the more formal pattern of Wesley and became the ‘Shouting Methodists’ on the frontier, more like Pentecostalists than Episcopalians. They have calmed down considerably since then, of course, founded many distinguished universities (Duke, Boston U, Syracuse, Emory, Southern Cal, etc etc), and have become basically middle class, ‘big tent’ and theologically (and even liturgically) very diverse. Go to one Methodist Church and you might think you were in a Lutheran Church; attend another and it will have a quasi-Baptist atmosphere. The ministers have a lot to do with that.

 I** can't believe that the Methodists will ever drift far very far toward Catholicism.** They treasure their theological and liturgical freedom far too much. They also have been heavily influenced by higher criticism, democratic congregationalism, and the emergence of women clergy - roughly 10,000 in the US UMC alone. Roughly half of their current seminarians are women, so the percentage of women clergy (now about 20%) will grow. They also have been influenced by the strong evangelical upsweep in certain parts of the nation.

** As for Wesley, he is revered for starting a good thing,** and his enthusiasm and personal piety are applauded, but his writings have only a superficial influence on comtemporary American Methodism. His focus on social concern does continue to have a major impact, although in this area Methodists in Georgia and Nebraska are likely to be quite different than those in New England and California. On the other hand, his General Rules (e. g., fervent condemnation of alcohol, 'gold and costly apparel" etc) are largely ignored by the laity.
God bless Catholics, Methodists and all others regardless of creed, color or country.

 

[JonNC]

=Rightlydivide;7156028]I see a few choices
The Catholic/Orthodox churches are the continuation of the church established by Christ as well as a few other possibililities like the Oriental Orthodox etc

That appears to be more than one choice, wouldn’t you say?

The Church should follow the Bible only as God’s directives for the church and Sola Scriptura is correct. Along those lines I understand this lumps Independent Fundamentalists with the Churches of Christ and even the JW’s. But I understant this view.

Well, honestly, your descroption here is not what sola scriptura actually is. Sola scriptura is the practice of using scripture as the final norm, holding teachers and teachings accountable to the word of God. Sola scriptura is not “bible alone” at the exclusion of all teachings. The Lutheran confessions are quite clear about this, and since Luther gets the blame/credit for SS, it seems to me the Lutheran definition is the default.

I also understand being a liberal who thinks it is all metaphorical etc. I dont like it but I get it

I don’t get it.

I do not get all of the churches that are not Catholic but use Catholic holidays, Catholic church services etc or are not sola scriptura. IE Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc.

They are not just Catholic holidays.

So in other words, I get the other three options but not people who embrace Catholicism but it seems only select parts.

Then it seems fair to say that you don’t get sola scriptura.
What is curious to me is the fact that fundamentalists, American Evangelicals, etc. want to claim sola scriptura, sola fide, etc, and don’t want to claim what they really mean, but instead, make up their on definition of them, and wonder aloud about those of us who do practice and define them properly.
Also curious is the notion that simply because a practice or doctrine has its roots in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the early Church and councils and creeds, the ECF’s, etc, that it should be rejected out of hand. The vast majority of Catholic teaching can be supported by scripture.

See what people think.

That’s what I think. Given the choice of only the first three - Catholic/Orthodox, solo scripturist, liberal protestant, I’d pick the first, as they are by far closer to scripture.

Jon