M
mrS4ntA
Guest
wacko indeed!
- Status
wacko indeed!
C
Contarini
Guest
:The mainline denominations have forgotten their founders theology on Mary.:
What mainline denominations deny that Mary is the Mother of God? If you’re talking about the Perpetual Virginity, then you have a point.
Edwin
What mainline denominations deny that Mary is the Mother of God? If you’re talking about the Perpetual Virginity, then you have a point.
Edwin
M
maisua
Guest
all protestants are not alike. liturgically, some anglo-catholics are virtually identical to Roman catholics [objections notwithstanding.]
check out the following to see that we have lots in common liturgically & spiritually [tho in fairness there are differences in moral judgements]
stmvirgin.org/
liturgically, we share lots…including daily recitation of The Angelus [except during Easter, when we do Regina Coeli.]
peace.
check out the following to see that we have lots in common liturgically & spiritually [tho in fairness there are differences in moral judgements]
stmvirgin.org/
liturgically, we share lots…including daily recitation of The Angelus [except during Easter, when we do Regina Coeli.]
peace.
M
Maccabees
Guest
Contarini said:
Well some of the more liberal denoms have many bishops and church leaders denying this along with the virgin birth itslef.So if you don’t beleive in the virgin birth I don’t think you really beleive in the Mary as the mother of God. Kinda falls a apart after that.
And yes they did beleive in the perpetual virginity at one time then no longer affirmed it and for the most part deny it today but have not have dogmatized that as being changed. The very same thing is going on with Mary as mother of God it was taught and beleived and now longer affirmed and while it has not been denied a very large number of mainline hierarchy have done away with the teaching without dogmatizing the rejection.
In many of these churches creeds you will never hear of Mary’s perpetual virginity as affirmed or denied althouhg it was once affirmed by their denomination.
M
masondoggy
Guest
michael servant:
“St. Mary’s Free Will Baptist Church”
LOL!
I found this one in the directory magazine for the new city I live in:
“St. Mary’s Free Will Baptist Church”
LOL!
S
Sanning
Guest
Lets look at this question another way. If Mary was really without original sin, an Imacculate Conception, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, why has not the Catholic Church ever thought about Her Mother! Surely,for this to happen, she too must have been chosen, without sin, Ima-+++++++++++ and so it goes on!
God Bless you All.
Andrew Smith
God Bless you All.
Andrew Smith
C
Contarini
Guest
:Well some of the more liberal denoms have many bishops and church leaders denying this along with the virgin birth itslef.:
You’re jumping from one thing to another. The perpetual virginity is not a doctrine taught by Protestant churches, although there is nothing to stop individuals from believing it. The virginal conception of Jesus is taught by all Protestant churches I know. Of course you get some people–even clergy and occasionally bishops–who deny it and teach other heresies. I’m not claiming that our discipline is as strict as yours (though yours is nowhere near as strict as that of fundamentalists–so it’s all relative). But the principle remains true for us as for you–judge us by what our churches teach as a whole, not by the aberrations of certain individuals.
:So if you don’t beleive in the virgin birth I don’t think you really beleive in the Mary as the mother of God. Kinda falls a apart after that.:
But since all Protestant churches of which I’m aware do believe in the virginal conception of Jesus, your argument has exactly no weight whatsoever until you can show me evidence that a Protestant church denies the virgin birth.
:And yes they did beleive in the perpetual virginity at one time then no longer affirmed it and for the most part deny it today but have not have dogmatized that as being changed.:
As a matter of fact, I don’t know any Protestant churches that ever dogmatized the perpetual virginity in the first place. Catholics routinely confuse the private opinions of the Reformers with the formal teachings of Protestant churches. Given that the Protestant churches essentially carried over from pre-Reformation Catholicism whatever they didn’t explicitly change, a case could be made that it was implicitly taught–and I suppose one might make a case that it is implicit in the Creeds.
: The very same thing is going on with Mary as mother of God it was taught and beleived and now longer affirmed and while it has not been denied a very large number of mainline hierarchy have done away with the teaching without dogmatizing the rejection.:
Actually, the “mainline hierarchy” are more likely to affirm Mary as mother of God than the rank and file or the non-mainline churches are. If anything, it’s being taught more commonly than it was a hundred years ago, as anti-Catholicism wanes and Protestant churches take the Fathers more seriously. However, Protestant churches have historically confessed Nicaea and Chalcedon as Biblically sound Councils, and I’d argue that an acceptance of Ephesus is implicit in that. And once again, contrary to what you seem to think, the trend is toward a clearer affirmation of the dogma, not away from it.
In Christ,
Edwin
You’re jumping from one thing to another. The perpetual virginity is not a doctrine taught by Protestant churches, although there is nothing to stop individuals from believing it. The virginal conception of Jesus is taught by all Protestant churches I know. Of course you get some people–even clergy and occasionally bishops–who deny it and teach other heresies. I’m not claiming that our discipline is as strict as yours (though yours is nowhere near as strict as that of fundamentalists–so it’s all relative). But the principle remains true for us as for you–judge us by what our churches teach as a whole, not by the aberrations of certain individuals.
:So if you don’t beleive in the virgin birth I don’t think you really beleive in the Mary as the mother of God. Kinda falls a apart after that.:
But since all Protestant churches of which I’m aware do believe in the virginal conception of Jesus, your argument has exactly no weight whatsoever until you can show me evidence that a Protestant church denies the virgin birth.
:And yes they did beleive in the perpetual virginity at one time then no longer affirmed it and for the most part deny it today but have not have dogmatized that as being changed.:
As a matter of fact, I don’t know any Protestant churches that ever dogmatized the perpetual virginity in the first place. Catholics routinely confuse the private opinions of the Reformers with the formal teachings of Protestant churches. Given that the Protestant churches essentially carried over from pre-Reformation Catholicism whatever they didn’t explicitly change, a case could be made that it was implicitly taught–and I suppose one might make a case that it is implicit in the Creeds.
: The very same thing is going on with Mary as mother of God it was taught and beleived and now longer affirmed and while it has not been denied a very large number of mainline hierarchy have done away with the teaching without dogmatizing the rejection.:
Actually, the “mainline hierarchy” are more likely to affirm Mary as mother of God than the rank and file or the non-mainline churches are. If anything, it’s being taught more commonly than it was a hundred years ago, as anti-Catholicism wanes and Protestant churches take the Fathers more seriously. However, Protestant churches have historically confessed Nicaea and Chalcedon as Biblically sound Councils, and I’d argue that an acceptance of Ephesus is implicit in that. And once again, contrary to what you seem to think, the trend is toward a clearer affirmation of the dogma, not away from it.
In Christ,
Edwin
P
Pani_Rose
Guest
Hey,
You might find this artilce adds something to the discussion here. Understand it is on how the East and West understand the same thing but differently. I like that in the beginning it says because the East and West both believe, then the protestants loose.
The Immaculate Conception and Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West
pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=346
I was raised Southen Baptist. I told the Lord to take me through the Scriptures to understand and he showed me many things. One of which was Gen. 3:15 in the older versions of King James, it says “I will put emnity between you and the woman, your offspring and hers” not an exact quote. As a protestant I read that for years, but I never read it.
Pani Rose
You might find this artilce adds something to the discussion here. Understand it is on how the East and West understand the same thing but differently. I like that in the beginning it says because the East and West both believe, then the protestants loose.
The Immaculate Conception and Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West
pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=346
I was raised Southen Baptist. I told the Lord to take me through the Scriptures to understand and he showed me many things. One of which was Gen. 3:15 in the older versions of King James, it says “I will put emnity between you and the woman, your offspring and hers” not an exact quote. As a protestant I read that for years, but I never read it.
Pani Rose
M
Maccabees
Guest
Contarini aka
Edwin
Mainline protestants have pretty much no official Marian dogma other than the Virigin birth which they officially confirm. I was going by not the official statements but the general theological movements of downplaying Mary by most mainline denoms. I know there are some especially some Anglcians that are undergoing a Marian rediscovery but aside from the small minorites most protestants don’t give a second thought to Mary. I know I was a protestnat and have many protestant firend some clergy. Everything like I said is pretty much unofficial. But I think I am accurate that their is little or no Marian movement in most mainline churches.
I considering the founders of mainline churches can be traced to the Reformers it is important to know what their founders tought on Mary and how far some have forgotten that heritage. You claim that is only the opinion of one person. But I am sorry these denoms were founded on one Person hence the name Lutheran for followers of Martin Luther without him there is no Lutheran church to not not that he believed in something many Lutherns would deny today such as Mary as Immaculate and every virgin is noteable. Same with the followers of other denoms who shown high views of Mary but now their churches who claim to follow their tradition in some way don’t adhere to their founders indes on Mary. Sorry I find that contradictory.
And the current trend among mainliners is away from dogma so I am sure despite whatever their view may be they will not declare it. Heck they are moving away from declaring homosexulity a sin.
I know they haven’t dogmatized it but heck you call a spade a spade when they nothing negative concerning the subject. Of course it eventually sneaks up on everyone witness the Episcopalians and their affirmation of a gay bishop no dogma was declared of okaying homosexuality but need I say more when this happens? This will happen to all the mainliners eventually.
Alas back to Mary no there is no dogma to point to but the opinions of your founders is different than the memebers of the same churches today that much I can say.
Edwin
Mainline protestants have pretty much no official Marian dogma other than the Virigin birth which they officially confirm. I was going by not the official statements but the general theological movements of downplaying Mary by most mainline denoms. I know there are some especially some Anglcians that are undergoing a Marian rediscovery but aside from the small minorites most protestants don’t give a second thought to Mary. I know I was a protestnat and have many protestant firend some clergy. Everything like I said is pretty much unofficial. But I think I am accurate that their is little or no Marian movement in most mainline churches.
I considering the founders of mainline churches can be traced to the Reformers it is important to know what their founders tought on Mary and how far some have forgotten that heritage. You claim that is only the opinion of one person. But I am sorry these denoms were founded on one Person hence the name Lutheran for followers of Martin Luther without him there is no Lutheran church to not not that he believed in something many Lutherns would deny today such as Mary as Immaculate and every virgin is noteable. Same with the followers of other denoms who shown high views of Mary but now their churches who claim to follow their tradition in some way don’t adhere to their founders indes on Mary. Sorry I find that contradictory.
And the current trend among mainliners is away from dogma so I am sure despite whatever their view may be they will not declare it. Heck they are moving away from declaring homosexulity a sin.
I know they haven’t dogmatized it but heck you call a spade a spade when they nothing negative concerning the subject. Of course it eventually sneaks up on everyone witness the Episcopalians and their affirmation of a gay bishop no dogma was declared of okaying homosexuality but need I say more when this happens? This will happen to all the mainliners eventually.
Alas back to Mary no there is no dogma to point to but the opinions of your founders is different than the memebers of the same churches today that much I can say.
C
Contarini
Guest
:I was going by not the official statements but the general theological movements of downplaying Mary by most mainline denoms.:
But as I said, that is not a contemporary trend–the opposite is the case.
: I know there are some especially some Anglcians that are undergoing a Marian rediscovery:
You’re a bit out of date on this. The Marian rediscovery within Anglicanism was a hundred and fifty years ago–it’s old hat by now. More recently, it has spread at least to some extent to non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicans and to other Protestant groups–Methodists, for instance, and even the Reformed. I know Methodists who pray the Rosary, including my wife (though I’ll freely admit that that is not an official or common practice).
: but aside from the small minorites most protestants don’t give a second thought to Mary. I know I was a protestnat:
What denomination?
: But I think I am accurate that their is little or no Marian movement in most mainline churches.:
Depends on what you mean by “Marian movement.” I admit that my perspective is somewhat skewed on this by the fact that my experience of the “mainline” is largely from Duke Divinity School, which is about as Catholic as mainline Protestantism (not counting Anglicanism) gets. I’m not claiming that large numbers of Protestants are praying the Rosary or setting up statues of Mary in their backyard. But the importance of the title “Theotokos” and the meaning of Mary for the Christian faith is far more widely recognized today than it was, say, fifty years ago.
:You claim that is only the opinion of one person.:
Or many people. My point is that the teaching of Protestant churches, like that of any church, is found in its collective statements, its confessions and liturgies, not primarily in the views of individual theologians.
: But I am sorry these denoms were founded on one Person:
You are absolutely wrong on this. Unquestionably certain Protestant traditions–particularly Lutheranism and Methodism–were deeply shaped by individual figures (Calvin’s role in the Reformed tradition is much less dominant–the common use of the word “Calvinist” for the Reformed notwithstanding) and at times tend toward a certain personality cult. But even these traditions were not “founded on” a person, other than Jesus Christ. Ask any member of these churches.
:hence the name Lutheran for followers of Martin Luther without him there is no Lutheran church:
True enough. But that doesn’t make Lutheranism “founded on” Luther. It just means that Luther is very important for Lutheranism, which is quite true (indeed, Lutheranism and American Methodism are extreme examples–most other forms of Protestantism are far less dominated by a single figure).
: to not not that he believed in something many Lutherns would deny today such as Mary as Immaculate and every virgin is noteable.:
Actually, part of the irony of Protestantism is that often Catholic renewal movements within Protestant traditions wind up emphpasizing the importance of the individual founders because the views of those founders were more Catholic than those of most modern Protestants. Methodism is a great example of this–Wesley was much less important for Methodists fifty or a hundred years ago than he is today (and this is largely the case in the U.S.–British Methodists are often puzzled at the American idea that Wesley is the epitome of Methodism).
: Same with the followers of other denoms who shown high views of Mary but now their churches who claim to follow their tradition in some way don’t adhere to their founders indes on Mary. Sorry I find that contradictory.:
No Protestant tradition claims to follow all of its founder’s ideas. So this is not contradictory. You have no right to invent an arbitrary standard and then demand that Protestants follow it.
But as I said, that is not a contemporary trend–the opposite is the case.
: I know there are some especially some Anglcians that are undergoing a Marian rediscovery:
You’re a bit out of date on this. The Marian rediscovery within Anglicanism was a hundred and fifty years ago–it’s old hat by now. More recently, it has spread at least to some extent to non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicans and to other Protestant groups–Methodists, for instance, and even the Reformed. I know Methodists who pray the Rosary, including my wife (though I’ll freely admit that that is not an official or common practice).
: but aside from the small minorites most protestants don’t give a second thought to Mary. I know I was a protestnat:
What denomination?
: But I think I am accurate that their is little or no Marian movement in most mainline churches.:
Depends on what you mean by “Marian movement.” I admit that my perspective is somewhat skewed on this by the fact that my experience of the “mainline” is largely from Duke Divinity School, which is about as Catholic as mainline Protestantism (not counting Anglicanism) gets. I’m not claiming that large numbers of Protestants are praying the Rosary or setting up statues of Mary in their backyard. But the importance of the title “Theotokos” and the meaning of Mary for the Christian faith is far more widely recognized today than it was, say, fifty years ago.
:You claim that is only the opinion of one person.:
Or many people. My point is that the teaching of Protestant churches, like that of any church, is found in its collective statements, its confessions and liturgies, not primarily in the views of individual theologians.
: But I am sorry these denoms were founded on one Person:
You are absolutely wrong on this. Unquestionably certain Protestant traditions–particularly Lutheranism and Methodism–were deeply shaped by individual figures (Calvin’s role in the Reformed tradition is much less dominant–the common use of the word “Calvinist” for the Reformed notwithstanding) and at times tend toward a certain personality cult. But even these traditions were not “founded on” a person, other than Jesus Christ. Ask any member of these churches.
:hence the name Lutheran for followers of Martin Luther without him there is no Lutheran church:
True enough. But that doesn’t make Lutheranism “founded on” Luther. It just means that Luther is very important for Lutheranism, which is quite true (indeed, Lutheranism and American Methodism are extreme examples–most other forms of Protestantism are far less dominated by a single figure).
: to not not that he believed in something many Lutherns would deny today such as Mary as Immaculate and every virgin is noteable.:
Actually, part of the irony of Protestantism is that often Catholic renewal movements within Protestant traditions wind up emphpasizing the importance of the individual founders because the views of those founders were more Catholic than those of most modern Protestants. Methodism is a great example of this–Wesley was much less important for Methodists fifty or a hundred years ago than he is today (and this is largely the case in the U.S.–British Methodists are often puzzled at the American idea that Wesley is the epitome of Methodism).
: Same with the followers of other denoms who shown high views of Mary but now their churches who claim to follow their tradition in some way don’t adhere to their founders indes on Mary. Sorry I find that contradictory.:
No Protestant tradition claims to follow all of its founder’s ideas. So this is not contradictory. You have no right to invent an arbitrary standard and then demand that Protestants follow it.
C
Contarini
Guest
:And the current trend among mainliners is away from dogma:
That’s true in some parts of the mainline denominations, but the contrary is true in others–Duke, for instance, has clearly moved toward dogma in the past ten years or so, and Duke is one of the most respected and influential mainline seminaries in the country.
: so I am sure despite whatever their view may be they will not declare it. Heck they are moving away from declaring homosexulity a sin.:
Again, that is true in the Episcopal Church, but much less clear in others, such as the UMC and PCUSA. The United Methodists have held the line so far, and the evangelical wing of that denomination appears to be growing. I believe something similar may be true of the Presbyterians, though I know less about them. Unfortunately, there are demographic reasons why this doesn’t work quite the same way in my own denomination (ECUSA).
:I know they haven’t dogmatized it but heck you call a spade a spade when they nothing negative concerning the subject.:
If you had followed the most recent General Conference of the UMC you would have seen some definite “negative” statements about homosexuality. The same is true of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 (representing worldwide Anglicanism). Your facts are simply wrong here.
: Of course it eventually sneaks up on everyone witness the Episcopalians:
Actually, a good case could be made that Episcopalians are somewhat atypical. We represent classes of society that tend to be unusually liberal.
: and their affirmation of a gay bishop no dogma was declared of okaying homosexuality but need I say more when this happens? This will happen to all the mainliners eventually.:
So you say, and depending on how you define “mainline” you may be right. For instance, Southern Baptists are generally not defined as “mainline” precisely because they are so conservative, but demographically and historically they have as much a right to be called “mainline” as the more liberal American Baptists. Similarly, if the UMC decisively rejects liberal views on homosexuality and other issues, or if it splits into liberal and conservative factions, it may no longer be called “mainline.” And if a conservative Anglican denomination is formed in the U.S., it probably won’t be called “mainline,” even if it is in communion with most Anglicans worldwide.
But if by “mainline” you mean “denominations representing the historic traditions of Protestantism, as opposed to fundamentalists and others who represent more radical or more modern forms of Protestantism”–in other words, the sacramental and ecumenical wing of Protestantism–then I think you are almost certainly wrong. I detect in your post the desire I’ve seen so often on Catholic discussion boards, to whittle Protestantism down to liberals on the one hand and fundamentalists on the other. Sorry, but reality isn’t like that. There is still a strong sacramental, ecumenical, orthodox center, and it’s holding.
Edwin
That’s true in some parts of the mainline denominations, but the contrary is true in others–Duke, for instance, has clearly moved toward dogma in the past ten years or so, and Duke is one of the most respected and influential mainline seminaries in the country.
: so I am sure despite whatever their view may be they will not declare it. Heck they are moving away from declaring homosexulity a sin.:
Again, that is true in the Episcopal Church, but much less clear in others, such as the UMC and PCUSA. The United Methodists have held the line so far, and the evangelical wing of that denomination appears to be growing. I believe something similar may be true of the Presbyterians, though I know less about them. Unfortunately, there are demographic reasons why this doesn’t work quite the same way in my own denomination (ECUSA).
:I know they haven’t dogmatized it but heck you call a spade a spade when they nothing negative concerning the subject.:
If you had followed the most recent General Conference of the UMC you would have seen some definite “negative” statements about homosexuality. The same is true of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 (representing worldwide Anglicanism). Your facts are simply wrong here.
: Of course it eventually sneaks up on everyone witness the Episcopalians:
Actually, a good case could be made that Episcopalians are somewhat atypical. We represent classes of society that tend to be unusually liberal.
: and their affirmation of a gay bishop no dogma was declared of okaying homosexuality but need I say more when this happens? This will happen to all the mainliners eventually.:
So you say, and depending on how you define “mainline” you may be right. For instance, Southern Baptists are generally not defined as “mainline” precisely because they are so conservative, but demographically and historically they have as much a right to be called “mainline” as the more liberal American Baptists. Similarly, if the UMC decisively rejects liberal views on homosexuality and other issues, or if it splits into liberal and conservative factions, it may no longer be called “mainline.” And if a conservative Anglican denomination is formed in the U.S., it probably won’t be called “mainline,” even if it is in communion with most Anglicans worldwide.
But if by “mainline” you mean “denominations representing the historic traditions of Protestantism, as opposed to fundamentalists and others who represent more radical or more modern forms of Protestantism”–in other words, the sacramental and ecumenical wing of Protestantism–then I think you are almost certainly wrong. I detect in your post the desire I’ve seen so often on Catholic discussion boards, to whittle Protestantism down to liberals on the one hand and fundamentalists on the other. Sorry, but reality isn’t like that. There is still a strong sacramental, ecumenical, orthodox center, and it’s holding.
Edwin
M
moira
Guest
M
mayra_hart
Guest
martin luther quoted:" in this work whereby she was made the mother of god, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…not only was mary the mother of him who is born in bethlehem, but him who, before the world,was eternally born of the father, from a mother in time and at the same time man and god." :tiphat: god bless you all
J
JesusFreak16
Guest
hey i dont want you to get mad at me, but what is there more and singing praises and praying and glorifying Him with works in His name?
Peace through Jesus~ Lisa
J
jimmy
Guest
JesusFreak, the mass is more than just praying. It is a representation of the sacrifice at calvary to God. The mass can only be offered to God. We partake in the Eucharist at mass also.
To pray means to ask. You can pray to any one in Heaven. It is not as great as the mass. The mass is a prayer basically but it is the greatest of prayers.
Its just that protestants do not realize the greatness of the mass.
M
Maccabees
Guest
Contarini said:
Well just look at any census figures the mainline denoms are in great decline the protestant wings who are growing greatly are fundamentilist, Baptist, Evangelicals non denom types, the only church of the reformation type that is doing well is the very conservative smaller PCA Presbyterian Church in America, the largest Presbyterian communion which is liberal is the PCUSA which is in declien like the rest of the mainliners.
Also I think that your contention that the founders of denominations opinions are just another opinion among many might be a little troubling to Luther Calvin as they wrote many works to show what they beleived and expected those in their in denomination to follow their beleifs… That after all is the reason to start you own church you are right in your interpretation others are wrong. If others that follow you can trump your prior findings that renders and dnomination meaningless. But oh wait thousands of denominations do render every denomination as mere opinion. The subjectiveity of protestantism now renders the conclusions of Luther wrong if your a Lutheran and if your a reformed Calvinist Clavin is now wrong and if your a Methodist Wesely is now wrong. Becuase their followers have stumbled upon something later and greater and theology. THus the never ending changing of opinion and multiplication of denominations never ends.
And yes I do think mainliners will cotinue to be soaked into moral abyss. THose conservative members will break away from the larger rank and file we have seen this happen in the Lutheran church, Presbyterian, its beginning in the Epiciopal church and will happne in the future in the UMC as that church in increeasingly becoming splintered into two groups liberal and evangelical. I could be wrong but the trend has been more splintering and more liberlization among the mainliners. Past History proves I am right and the future will as well. Your contention that the middle will remain dominant wihtout further splintering would be the first lets wait and see I am not scarred to wager my pick
I found a recent confernce interview by the head writer for religion of Newsweek most illuminating and telling. He relgious subject matter is geared by magazines to Catholics, Catholics, Catholics, Evangelicals then other world relgions depending on the topic of the times so Islam would be right up there.
THere is no concentration on Lutherans, Episcopalinas or Methodist as the larger bodies of these mainline denoms don’t take hard stances on moral issues anymore and the adherents are not passionate about thier beliefs anymore.
You can’t say that about Catholcism and Evangelicalsim. As catholics have an official structure and teaching it makes it that much more a target and authority on moral and social justice issues. Evangeliclas lack that so they remain behind Catholics but they make up for some of that for the passion on moral issues.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Evangelicals don’t ask Mary–nor anyone else who has passed away–to pray for them, because they don’t expect her to hear them. For the saintly departed to hear prayer, they would have to be directly involved in the affairs of this life, which it is presumed would detract from the joys and bliss of Heaven. The Saints may well be in Heaven praising God and praying on our behalf–but they are doing so without any direct awareness of events as they transpire on Earth. They will have some sort of knowledge, if only by the accounts of those who have most-recently expired (hence the prayers of the martyrs in Revelation for justice), but to have direct knowledge of the fact that Susie in Manhattan and Gomez in Venezuel and Chen in Mongolia, etcetera are all petitioning Saint So-and-So seems unlikely to most Protestants.
Not to mention overwhelming. Ask Karl Keating if he personally reads and personally responds to every phone call and/or letter he receives addressed to him at Catholic Answers. It is improbable, since even this forum has somethng over 100,000 members now. He hasn’t enough time in the day. And yet he is not known to ‘all Catholics’ to the degree that Mary or St. Francis of Assissi are known: we can presume they get slightly more ‘fan mail’ than does Karl.
In mainline denominations I am more fuzzy. I know that some Methodists pray to the saints, since I had a great-aunt who did so on one occaision. I’m uncertain if Lutherans or Presbyterians ever do. Anglicans do, but it is not highly emphasized as a practice in most Anglican churches.
F
flameburns623
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
:Well just look at any census figures the mainline denoms are in great decline:
Absolutely
: the protestant wings who are growing greatly are fundamentilist, Baptist, Evangelicals non denom types,:
You’re lumping all these categories together. There are strong evangelical wings in pretty much all the “mainline” denominations and they are growing. Furthermore, many evangelicals both within and outside the mainline denominations who are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of tradition and the sacraments. The growth of evangelicalism doesn’t mean that everyone is becoming a Baptist.
: the only church of the reformation type that is doing well is the very conservative smaller PCA Presbyterian Church in America.:
Yes, but the PCA is anything but non-denominational–it has a pretty strong sacramental theology and takes history and tradition very seriously (though admittedly their understanding of tradition is rather truncated). It may be that in a hundred years the PCA will be the main representative of Presbyterianism in the U.S. Fine, that doesn’t affect my argument.
:Also I think that your contention that the founders of denominations opinions are just another opinion among many might be a little troubling to Luther Calvin:
Even if you were right, why should I care? The purpose of any Christian church is not to make its “founders” happy in their graves, but to follow Christ. As I’m sure Luther and Calvin would agree.
: as they wrote many works to show what they beleived and expected those in their in denomination to follow their beleifs.:
I would disagree regarding both Luther and Calvin, for somewhat different reasons. Luther clearly sat rather loosely to most of his own ideas–he frequently changed his mind and said apparently incompatible things. He regarded his central insights as “the Gospel” and obviously expected his followers to adhere to those insights. And as I admitted earlier, he has tended to function as the Grand Guru of Lutheranism in some ways that I think are not very healthy. But the fact is that many of Luther’s own views have not been adopted–his understanding of the ubiquity of Christ’s Body, for instance, did not become part of Lutheran dogma–and contrary to you, I don’t think this would particularly bother him.
Calvin, IMHO, was far more likely to think that every jot and tittle of his theology was the one proper way of interpreting Scripture. Fortunately, Calvin did not have the dominating role in the Reformed tradition that Luther did among Lutherans. (In some specific respects this was unfortunate–for instance, the Reformed have tended to be influenced by Zwingli’s views of the sacraments at least as much as Calvin’s more Catholic opinions.) Calvin was in no sense the founder or leader of the Reformed tradition–in his own lifetime he was simply one of its most prominent pastors and theologians. Later generations enshrined him as the Reformed theologian par excellence, but his role is equivalent to that of Aquinas or Augustine among Catholics. Extremely important but not all-determining.
:That after all is the reason to start you own church you are right in your interpretation others are wrong.:
Of course, neither Luther nor Calvin intended to start their own church. Calvin certainly didn’t, since Reformed Protestantism was up and running by the time Calvin grew his first whiskers. Luther thought he was living at the end of time and that Christ would return and destroy the Papacy. He had no idea of starting something new but of renewing and restoring the Church that had always existed. The idea of "starting a new church is the product of later Protestant denominationalism, although even then pretty much any actual founder of a new denomination would deny that that was what they were doing. People generally don’t set out to form new denominations–that just isn’t how it works.
Absolutely
: the protestant wings who are growing greatly are fundamentilist, Baptist, Evangelicals non denom types,:
You’re lumping all these categories together. There are strong evangelical wings in pretty much all the “mainline” denominations and they are growing. Furthermore, many evangelicals both within and outside the mainline denominations who are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of tradition and the sacraments. The growth of evangelicalism doesn’t mean that everyone is becoming a Baptist.
: the only church of the reformation type that is doing well is the very conservative smaller PCA Presbyterian Church in America.:
Yes, but the PCA is anything but non-denominational–it has a pretty strong sacramental theology and takes history and tradition very seriously (though admittedly their understanding of tradition is rather truncated). It may be that in a hundred years the PCA will be the main representative of Presbyterianism in the U.S. Fine, that doesn’t affect my argument.
:Also I think that your contention that the founders of denominations opinions are just another opinion among many might be a little troubling to Luther Calvin:
Even if you were right, why should I care? The purpose of any Christian church is not to make its “founders” happy in their graves, but to follow Christ. As I’m sure Luther and Calvin would agree.
: as they wrote many works to show what they beleived and expected those in their in denomination to follow their beleifs.:
I would disagree regarding both Luther and Calvin, for somewhat different reasons. Luther clearly sat rather loosely to most of his own ideas–he frequently changed his mind and said apparently incompatible things. He regarded his central insights as “the Gospel” and obviously expected his followers to adhere to those insights. And as I admitted earlier, he has tended to function as the Grand Guru of Lutheranism in some ways that I think are not very healthy. But the fact is that many of Luther’s own views have not been adopted–his understanding of the ubiquity of Christ’s Body, for instance, did not become part of Lutheran dogma–and contrary to you, I don’t think this would particularly bother him.
Calvin, IMHO, was far more likely to think that every jot and tittle of his theology was the one proper way of interpreting Scripture. Fortunately, Calvin did not have the dominating role in the Reformed tradition that Luther did among Lutherans. (In some specific respects this was unfortunate–for instance, the Reformed have tended to be influenced by Zwingli’s views of the sacraments at least as much as Calvin’s more Catholic opinions.) Calvin was in no sense the founder or leader of the Reformed tradition–in his own lifetime he was simply one of its most prominent pastors and theologians. Later generations enshrined him as the Reformed theologian par excellence, but his role is equivalent to that of Aquinas or Augustine among Catholics. Extremely important but not all-determining.
:That after all is the reason to start you own church you are right in your interpretation others are wrong.:
Of course, neither Luther nor Calvin intended to start their own church. Calvin certainly didn’t, since Reformed Protestantism was up and running by the time Calvin grew his first whiskers. Luther thought he was living at the end of time and that Christ would return and destroy the Papacy. He had no idea of starting something new but of renewing and restoring the Church that had always existed. The idea of "starting a new church is the product of later Protestant denominationalism, although even then pretty much any actual founder of a new denomination would deny that that was what they were doing. People generally don’t set out to form new denominations–that just isn’t how it works.
C
Contarini
Guest
: If others that follow you can trump your prior findings that renders and dnomination meaningless.:
No, you are wrong. Every denomination exists only as part of the Universal Church, which is all that matters. Denominations are particular groups of Christians who have come to approach the truth of the Gospel through a particular set of doctrines and practices. (Never mind that we’re confusing “denominations” with broader traditions, which today generally include multiple denominations.)
: The subjectiveity of protestantism now renders the conclusions of Luther wrong if your a Lutheran and if your a reformed Calvinist Clavin is now wrong and if your a Methodist Wesely is now wrong.:
We don’t believe in infallibility, so why should this bother us?
:THus the never ending changing of opinion and multiplication of denominations never ends.:
You’re quite right. The only way to prevent it is by coercion. If you aren’t willing to bring back the Inquisition, or at least to establish some kind of religious monopoly by state intervention, you’re just going to have to make up your mind to accept the reality of splintering denominations. However, Catholics often take a very distorted approach to this, not looking at it in perspective. Splintering happens at one end of the theological spectrum within Protestantism–it almost always occurs among those groups that are trying to be most counter-cultural and most value purity, whether of doctrine or practice. Over time, successful religious groups tend to become more and more “liberal,” till eventually they start losing members because they no longer stand for much. At that point they typically start merging with each other. Meanwhile more conservative groups split away and form more tiny splinter groups, some of which grow and become successful, and hence become more liberal , etc.
To some extent this is the history of Protestantism, at least of American Protestantism where government control is minimal and indidivualism is the order of the day. I don’t like it–but then I don’t like a lot of things about living in a fallen world, and I’m not sure this is the worst thing we have to deal with. Also, the process isn’t entirely inevitable. Both the Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Southern Baptists appear to have halted the process, at least for now (in doing so, both of them have taken far more conservative stances than I’m comfortable with, actually). It’s possible that the UMC will do the same. But in the end denominations, as organized groups, simply don’t matter. What matters is the Universal Church, which is not purely “invisible” but is the sum total of all baptized Christians. We should strive for as much unity as possible among Christians, knowing that in a fallen world perfect unity, like perfect holiness, is impossible.
:Your contention that the middle will remain dominant wihtout further splintering would be the first:
I didn’t say there wouldn’t be further splintering. On the contrary, I’m sure there will be. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
On the other hand, I think your history is not entirely accurate. The major Protestant traditions have had non-schismatic renewal movements throughout their history–though usually in a state church context where there was a reason for evangelicals to stay rather than leave. However, in recent decades mainline evangelicals have been affected enough by the ecumenical movement that I think there are some grounds for hope that they may stay and prevail rather than cutting and running as they often have in the past. So actually there are precedents for orthodoxy making a comeback (the Church of England in the early 19th century, for instance, was far more vibrant and orthodox than it had been a century earlier), and there are reasons for believing that at least some American Protestants may be shaking off their penchant for reformation by schism.
In Christ,
Edwin
No, you are wrong. Every denomination exists only as part of the Universal Church, which is all that matters. Denominations are particular groups of Christians who have come to approach the truth of the Gospel through a particular set of doctrines and practices. (Never mind that we’re confusing “denominations” with broader traditions, which today generally include multiple denominations.)
: The subjectiveity of protestantism now renders the conclusions of Luther wrong if your a Lutheran and if your a reformed Calvinist Clavin is now wrong and if your a Methodist Wesely is now wrong.:
We don’t believe in infallibility, so why should this bother us?
:THus the never ending changing of opinion and multiplication of denominations never ends.:
You’re quite right. The only way to prevent it is by coercion. If you aren’t willing to bring back the Inquisition, or at least to establish some kind of religious monopoly by state intervention, you’re just going to have to make up your mind to accept the reality of splintering denominations. However, Catholics often take a very distorted approach to this, not looking at it in perspective. Splintering happens at one end of the theological spectrum within Protestantism–it almost always occurs among those groups that are trying to be most counter-cultural and most value purity, whether of doctrine or practice. Over time, successful religious groups tend to become more and more “liberal,” till eventually they start losing members because they no longer stand for much. At that point they typically start merging with each other. Meanwhile more conservative groups split away and form more tiny splinter groups, some of which grow and become successful, and hence become more liberal , etc.
To some extent this is the history of Protestantism, at least of American Protestantism where government control is minimal and indidivualism is the order of the day. I don’t like it–but then I don’t like a lot of things about living in a fallen world, and I’m not sure this is the worst thing we have to deal with. Also, the process isn’t entirely inevitable. Both the Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Southern Baptists appear to have halted the process, at least for now (in doing so, both of them have taken far more conservative stances than I’m comfortable with, actually). It’s possible that the UMC will do the same. But in the end denominations, as organized groups, simply don’t matter. What matters is the Universal Church, which is not purely “invisible” but is the sum total of all baptized Christians. We should strive for as much unity as possible among Christians, knowing that in a fallen world perfect unity, like perfect holiness, is impossible.
:Your contention that the middle will remain dominant wihtout further splintering would be the first:
I didn’t say there wouldn’t be further splintering. On the contrary, I’m sure there will be. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
On the other hand, I think your history is not entirely accurate. The major Protestant traditions have had non-schismatic renewal movements throughout their history–though usually in a state church context where there was a reason for evangelicals to stay rather than leave. However, in recent decades mainline evangelicals have been affected enough by the ecumenical movement that I think there are some grounds for hope that they may stay and prevail rather than cutting and running as they often have in the past. So actually there are precedents for orthodoxy making a comeback (the Church of England in the early 19th century, for instance, was far more vibrant and orthodox than it had been a century earlier), and there are reasons for believing that at least some American Protestants may be shaking off their penchant for reformation by schism.
In Christ,
Edwin
- Status