Protestants: Recognizable church

[dzheremi]

What is it about Protestants (and, in Yankee Doodle’s case, agnostics) that makes them think that the most cogent component of a “recognizable” Church is bound to be the actual structure that it is housed in, rather than something more substantial like, oh, I don’t know…the liturgy?

It boggles my mind! Please help me out here, guys.

 

[yankee_doodle]

What is it about Protestants (and, in Yankee Doodle’s case, agnostics) that makes them think that the most cogent component of a “recognizable” Church is bound to be the actual structure that it is housed in, rather than something more substantial like, oh, I don’t know…the liturgy?

It boggles my mind! Please help me out here, guys.

honestly, I frankly don’t care … I probably should have kept my trap shut (I don’t believe in any of this stuff anyway). I was just saying, aesthetically and probably in terms of worship services, many protestant churches are probably more like first century Christian churches than Catholic Churches are. Let’s face it … Catholic Churches are definitely more pleasing to the eye compared to something like a Baptist church (which is just a room filled with chairs).

 

[JonNC]

What is it about Protestants (and, in Yankee Doodle’s case, agnostics) that makes them think that the most cogent component of a “recognizable” Church is bound to be the actual structure that it is housed in, rather than something more substantial like, oh, I don’t know…the liturgy?

It boggles my mind! Please help me out here, guys.

dz,
Please put the broad brush away, because I was thinking exactly the same thing when I was reading Yankee’s post. And I agree with you!
As I said in my first post on this thread, I think the apostles would recognize the preaching of Christ, and Him crucified at my Lutheran Church, through word and sacrament, and yes, the Liturgy.

Jon

 

[yankee_doodle]

dz,
Please put the broad brush away, because I was thinking exactly the same thing when I was reading Yankee’s post. And I agree with you!
As I said in my first post on this thread, I think the apostles would recognize the preaching of Christ, and Him crucified at my Lutheran Church, through word and sacrament, and yes, the Liturgy.

Jon

sounds like a bunch of speculation to me?

 

[JonNC]

sounds like a bunch of speculation to me?

Yeah, maybe. But I think more like inferring. You said:

In my experience most protestant churches tend to be simple dwellings, with not much decoration, probably much more like the simple dwellings first century Christians worshiped in compared to the grandeur of a Catholic Church. I’m sure protestant services are also probably more similar to apostolic era services since the Catholic mass is a very orderly, ritualistic worship ceremony. The first century church, according to the bible, wasn’t nearly as organized as the CC. Sometimes services were held in peoples homes.

We both kind of inferred that you were focused, not on doctrine and beliefs, but on physical and organizational structures. dz and I had a different view of the OP, who asked;

Would they see their same faith in your church?

Bolding mine

So, yes, it probably is all speculation.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

honestly, I frankly don’t care … I probably should have kept my trap shut (I don’t believe in any of this stuff anyway). I was just saying, aesthetically and probably in terms of worship services, many protestant churches are probably more like first century Christian churches than Catholic Churches are. Let’s face it … Catholic Churches are definitely more pleasing to the eye compared to something like a Baptist church (which is just a room filled with chairs).

The Catholic Mass was in place and pretty much in the form that we know it today by the time of the writing of the Didache (which some scholars put at 50 AD, which is before the first word of the New Testament had yet been written down) - we know that because the Didache makes reference to various elements of the Sunday worship, which correspond to the elements of the Catholic Mass.

If the Apostles were to be suddenly transported into modern times, they would probably find the Eastern Rites to be the ones most familiar to them, with the Latin Rite (both the Tridentine and the modern forms of it) being recognizable as variations on the same theme.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The Catholic Mass was in place and pretty much in the form that we know it today by the time of the writing of the Didache (which some scholars put at 50 AD, which is before the first word of the New Testament had yet been written down) - we know that because the Didache makes reference to various elements of the Sunday worship, which correspond to the elements of the Catholic Mass.

do you have any evidence to back up this claim? If so please present it for examination. It certainly isn’t the Didache itself (see link here) a short 16 paragraph document that tells us little about how the early Christian church looked (and if anything debunks your claim … for instance Chap. 7 states the preferred method of baptism is in “living water” i.e. a river, ocean, lake, or pond).

If the Apostles were to be suddenly transported into modern times, they would probably find the Eastern Rites to be the ones most familiar to them, with the Latin Rite (both the Tridentine and the modern forms of it) being recognizable as variations on the same theme.

not that your opinion is biased or anything?

 

[jmcrae]

do you have any evidence to back up this claim? If so please present it for examination.

The Didache is not actually very long - you can read it for yourself here.

not that your opinion is unbiased or anything?

Not at all - I was a Liberal Protestant when I figured that out - which is actually part of why I’m Catholic today.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The Didache is not actually very long - you can read it for yourself here.

is this an alternate universe … didn’t I just provide a link for the Didache

So I assume you’re saying no, you have no evidence supporting your earlier claim that the first century church looked more like the CC of today as opposed to say a little Baptist church?

Not at all - I was a Liberal Protestant when I figured that out - which is actually part of why I’m Catholic today.

great, then again, what proof aided your decision?

 

[O.S.Luke]

Not at all - I was a Liberal Protestant when I figured that out - which is actually part of why I’m Catholic today.

What is a “Liberal Protestant?” Is this just name calling, or an actual term (since both words are capitalized)?

 

[O.S.Luke]

If the Apostles were to be suddenly transported into modern times, they would probably find the Eastern Rites to be the ones most familiar to them, with the Latin Rite (both the Tridentine and the modern forms of it) being recognizable as variations on the same theme.

Doubt it on the Latin rite. The earliest liturgies were in Greek, not Latin. And the Didache was all in Greek, as was the Liturgy of Justin Martyr. You can see the original text (if you have the font downloaded) here. Latin was a later introduction.

 

[yankee_doodle]

What is a “Liberal Protestant?” Is this just name calling, or an actual term (since both words are capitalized)?

I’m guessing liberal is just a qualifier (liberal as opposed to “conservative” protestant); but I could be wrong. I don’t think it was a slur aimed towards protestants.

A while back I was watching this guy, Scott Hahn on EWTN discuss his conversion to the Catholic faith (he was a protestant minister). He justified his conversion based on his belief that the CC conformed more to scripture than the protestant sect he belonged to (and I assume protestantism in general). It occurred to me, wow, this individuals world view is shaped by a single book. In other words he didn’t consider any secular material, and based a profound life decision solely on his view of “scripture” and I assume Christian history (and writings).

When you’re so convinced of something that you won’t even seriously consider any extraneous material – if we were talking about anything besides religion we would call it brainwashing.

The assumption of religious folks when they interact with atheists or agnostics is they haven’t given serious consideration to Christianity. This has been inferred of me many times here on CAF, yet when I pose a challenge like, would you like to engage me in a who knows the bible better contest, there’s silence.

Anyway, just some thoughts!

 

[BrianH]

I’m guessing liberal is just a qualifier (liberal as opposed to “conservative” protestant); but I could be wrong. I don’t think it was a slur aimed towards protestants.

A while back I was watching this guy, Scott Hahn on EWTN discuss his conversion to the Catholic faith (he was a protestant minister). He justified his conversion based on his belief that the CC conformed more to scripture than the protestant sect he belonged to (and I assume protestantism in general). It occurred to me, wow, this individuals world view is shaped by a single book. In other words he didn’t consider any secular material, and based a profound life decision solely on his view of “scripture” and I assume Christian history (and writings).

When you’re so convinced of something that you won’t even seriously consider any extraneous material – if we were talking about anything besides religion we would call it brainwashing.

The assumption of religious folks when they interact with atheists or agnostics is they haven’t given serious consideration to Christianity. This has been inferred of me many times here on CAF, yet when I pose a challenge like, would you like to engage me in a who knows the bible better contest, there’s silence.

Anyway, just some thoughts!

Thoughtful indeed. Well said.

 

[jmcrae]

What is a “Liberal Protestant?” Is this just name calling, or an actual term (since both words are capitalized)?

That’s what we actually called ourselves. It was the United Church of Canada. The term was intended to signify that although we were in the Protestant tradition, we were not Biblical literalists, that we were very open and accepting about such things as divorce and homosexuality, and that the coffee and tea served after services would be from a fair trade co-op in a third world country.

 

[jmcrae]

Doubt it on the Latin rite. The earliest liturgies were in Greek, not Latin. And the Didache was all in Greek, as was the Liturgy of Justin Martyr. You can see the original text (if you have the font downloaded) here. Latin was a later introduction.

Yes, I’m fully aware that the Latin came later.

That’s why I said that they would be most familiar with the Eastern Rite (ie: the Mass in Greek and Aramaic)

The elements of the Latin Rite Mass (regardless of what language it is said in) are things they would recognize from the Greek and Aramaic Masses of the Eastern Rite - for example, we cross ourselves “backwards” and not as frequently, but they would recognize it as a variation of the same thing, and they would notice that we cross ourselves every time the Trinity is invoked, as they do in the Greek and Aramaic Masses.

(Whereas most Protestants don’t cross themselves at all.)

 

[VARC]

I wouldn’t expect the apostles to feel at home at any modern church. The church has evolved and branched out in so many directions. Theology, doctrine and liturgy has come a long way since the 1st century. The apostles would be lost from moment we read from the New Testament not to mention the recitation of the Creed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Harpazo:

This is a very interesting question. I was brought up in the Baptist Church.

About 4 years ago (I am 54 now); I began to study the history of Christianity, Judaism, and transmission of Scripture. I, also, read the Bible cover-to-cover, and began comparing English translations of the Bible.

It did not take long for me to realize that the Early Church is unrecognizable within the Baptist Church. I felt betrayed by Baptist leaders. This did create a “spiritual crisis” for me, and I have been working through that crisis for the past four years.

I no longer accept Sola Scriptura. I think spirit lead “traditions,” such as the Trinity doctrine, has been handed down to us through the centuries.

I do not believe salvation comes by faith alone, as faith without works is dead. That does not mean that I believe we can “earn our salvation”; and by what I have read from Catholic Forum Members, Catholics do not believe in “earning salvation” either-Catholics please correct me if I am wrong. I also realized that Scripture reveals that one can actually lose their salvation. We are to keep the Commandments of our Lord and walk the path He created for us.

So, to answer your question: No, I do not believe the "Apostles and martyrs who shed their blood would recognize the Baptist church."

I just have not quite settled the issue of where I do belong. I know that I do not belong in the Baptist Church.

In Search of God’s Truth,
Anna

STM you should look at Calvinism Scripture does not teach salvation can be lost - it teaches that some people can be or will be lost. Big big difference.​

 

[jmcrae]

STM you should look at Calvinism Scripture does not teach salvation can be lost - it teaches that some people can be or will be lost. Big big difference.​

I am not seeing the difference. If someone is baptized, he is going to go to Heaven. (Even Calvin and Knox believed that.)

If he then sins, at that point, he is going to go to Hell. (I think the Calvinists believe that a man who sins is showing the marks of depravity, and that he is going to go to Hell.)

If he repents and either goes to Confession with a Catholic priest or makes a perfect Act of Contrition, then he is once again on the path to Heaven. (What do the Calvinists say, if someone who once was a sinner, but now has stopped sinning and attributes the change to the action of Jesus Christ? Don’t they say that he is showing the signs of predestination?)

 

[2nd_Adam]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have a genuine question for the Protestants on CAF. Do you believe that the Apostles and martyrs who shed their blood would recognize your church or denomination? Would they see their same faith in your church? Does it even matter if they did? Why or why not?

While this thread is geared toward Protestants, I would appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut from former Protestants as to what they believed in regards to this when they were in that particular church/denomination. But please no Protestant bashing! We already know what most of you Catholics believe about Protestants.

In Christ,
Andrew

That’s pretty good. If we take the book of Acts as a picture of the 1st century Church, I don’t think the Apostles and first century christians would recogonize Protestant churches, Catholic churches, Orhtodox churches, and Anglican churches. They are way too instutionalized and wordly. The first century Christians met in homes, and other obscure places.

 

[jmcrae]

The first century Christians met in homes, and other obscure places.

Yes, they did, but that doesn’t mean that they were having casual tea parties. The Liturgy was in place right from the start.

When it became permitted for them to raise up buildings for worship, not only did they do so right away and without any delay, they actually designed the buildings around the Liturgy.