simply Christian

[pneuma07]

The implied meaning is that a “Just a Christian” is better than any denomination because that means the “Just a Christian” is only looking at God and the Bible, with very little guidance, for their answers and thinking their answers are right because “The Holy Spirit will guide them”.

And then you have a church of one that doesn’t agree with any other church of one.

What is even funnier, many “Just a Christians” think they have the power to infallibly interpret scripture on their own, (or at least get a significant portion right) yet rebuke that any Denomination, especially the CC can.

If you tell me you are “Just a Christian”, I have no idea what you believe…

And that is why “Just a Christian” is a meaningless, bordering on sinful statement

In Christ

Hi Heisenburg !

I’d be likely less severe, and would considere the wide range of cases and personal motivations and attitudes.

Nevertheless I do share the fear - as my reply to Deacon 110 has probably shown - that within the “simply/just christian” trend an element leading to the uttermost development of fragmentation can be present. We could say that, as far as this element is concerned, rather than post-protestantism we can somehow see a “super-protestantism”. ( forgive these terminological attempts ). I mean we’d see the principle of rejecting authority and Tradition and making oneself the best interpreter of the Revelation reaching its ultimate consequences.

At present, I could not say whether this element is to be considered the fundametal one in the trend we’re dealing with.

 

[pneuma07]

I think my profile here says “Christian”

I grew up non-denominational so I have no denomination to claim really. I attend an Assembly of God right now, but I don’t really think of it as my denomination. It is just the best church that is available for me to attend atm.
QUOTE]

Hi Syele ! Thanks for the witness.

If I get, you are not theoretically against any confessionalism
( as Deacon seems to be). Rather, you do no not find in practice
any denomination worth your affiliation. And you do not feel you need any.

Could you consider yourself protestant ? Whom are you in communion with ? What do you think about how we got the Bible ?

 

[Syele]

Hi Syele ! Thanks for the witness.

If I get, you are not theoretically against any confessionalism

I find overall there is less division among the non-denominationals… they are not as quick to yell foul over things and split off. I like that they will Worship in unity and study together things even if they believe differently in the same congregation.

Rather, you do no not find in practice
any denomination worth your affiliation. And you do not feel you need any.

I believe that God is not limited by denominational divides and they are unnecessary.

Could you consider yourself protestant ? Whom are you in communion with ? What do you think about how we got the Bible ?

IMO “Protestant” is a word for Catholics to use to distinguish non-Catholic Christians from Catholic Christians. It is not a word that Non-Catholics use to describe themselves, unless it for the benefit of a Catholic… I do not go about yelling that I not a protestant, but You wont ever see me introduce myself as one in person or to a non-Catholic.

 

[ibkc]

IMO “Protestant” is a word for Catholics to use to distinguish non-Catholic Christians from Catholic Christians. It is not a word that Non-Catholics use to describe themselves, unless it for the benefit of a Catholic.

That’s certainly not how it is in my corner of the world, which is and always has been strongly Protestant. I didn’t know any Catholic children at all when I was growing up, that’s how scarce they were then. But the “P Word” was not forbidden and was common, even, after denominational identity. It still is that way among my family and friends. That is why I do a bit of a double-take when I hear someone identify themselves as just a Christian and then get annoyed when asked for a further identification. While we all are broadly Christian, there are significant doctrinal differences between the various Christian groups. It is strange to pretend otherwise, and to claim the broad title of “Christian” to signify small subset of belief. It comes across to me as disingenuous attempt to marginalize the beliefs of others, a way out of learning about other belief systems, and at worst, an attempt to redefine what the word “Christian” means.

 

[Singinbeauty]

I heard something that made me smile and think at the same time…

Labels are for soup cans

It’s true. If someone comes up to you and says they are christian, take them at their word until their actions prove them wrong. It is not our place to judge who is ‘christian’ and who isn’t so if someone says they are, take them at face value.

We will prove it by the fruit that we produce. I think the only reason to insist that people define their beliefs by a label is so you can automatically choose whether to enter into a dicussion with them about Faith and which angle you are going to do it in. I think if we all enter as christian it may help the whole anti-catholic / anti-protestant behavior disappear…

 

[jmcrae]

I heard something that made me smile and think at the same time…

Labels are for soup cans

It’s true. If someone comes up to you and says they are christian, take them at their word until their actions prove them wrong.

The problem is that “Christian” can be defined in so many different ways that it has essentially become a meaningless word.

The reason we put labels on soup cans is so that we know what we’re going to find in it when we open it up. That’s also why (at least to some extent) it’s necessary to label people, too - not to “judge” them, but so that we know what we can expect from them, and what is a realistic way to interact with them.

If you tell me you are a “Christian” but you don’t tell me what kind, how do I know if it’s safe to invite you to Rosary Group tonight? I still don’t know if you would be offended by that, or if you would jump at the chance. But if you tell me that you are a Campbellite or a Baptist, then I would save my invitation for maybe a Bible study, or something like that, instead of Rosary Group, since that is more likely to be something that we would enjoy doing together.

 

[anthony022071]

I consider myself a generic Christian because I don’t want to associate with any particular denomination.

The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination,though. The Church has been called Catholic since at least the time of Ignatius.
If you don’t want to be a part of the Church,then you don’t want to be a part of the Body of Christ. When Paul was on the road to Damascus,Christ told him “Saul,Saul,why are you persecuting me?” How was Saul persecuting Christ when Christ had already died? Saul had been persecuting the Church,Christ’s body.

I find that all denominations have something in their doctrine that seems to somehow preclude other denominations from being saved. Rather than associate with a denomiation that has doctrine I honestly can’t agree with I would rather just focus on the Bible and try to identify with what Christ is asking us to do.

The belief in “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” comes from the early centuries of the Church when there were heresies (such as Gnosticism,Arianism) that undermined the right belief in the divinity of Christ,and in his death and Resurrection. These basic doctrines about who Christ was were settled by the decisions of papal approved councils and by the popes themselves. Since most Christian denominations have inherited these basic doctrines from the Catholic Church,they are not anti-Christian like the early heresies were.

I think the biggest message we miss is that Jesus makes a simple request to us which is to believe.

He also demands obedience from us in following the commandments – which includes works of mercy.
Belief should be accompanied by works. As James wrote,faith without works is dead. Only the Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of works.

I agree with Baptism because Jesus asks us to be Baptized, I also obviously believe in honoring the Lord’s Supper each week and sometimes wonder why it’s not everyday.

Baptism and Eucharist should also be from within the Church that Christ founded upon Peter.

But I’m finding that so many denominations try to actually speak for GOD by making very specific interpretations in their doctrine. Rather than try to do this which is the finite trying to interpret the infinite, I would rather focus squarely on Jesus and place my complete faith and trust in HIM and GOD. Jesus makes it very clear in John 3:16 as well as across the entire NT that we are to believe in HIM.

Interpretation is unavoidable. When you read the Bible,the scriptures are not really speaking for themselves. You are interpreting them according to your own understanding.
And even the influence of the Holy Spirit will not prevent a person outside of the Church from misinterpreting scripture. The scriptures are the infallibale Word of God,but they are the Word of God written in dead words. Between the dead words on the page and the person who reads them,there is the gulf of interpretation.
The infallible Word of God needs infallible interpretation from within the Church.
The living Word of God is the Word spoken by Christ and by his priesthood.

 

[Singinbeauty]

The problem is that “Christian” can be defined in so many different ways that it has essentially become a meaningless word.

With it being us that profess this title then we should defend it enough to keep it from being ‘meaningless’.

But then, I have a friend who claims that she is and always will be catholic yet she goes to and participates in protestant services, and she knows nearly nothing about the catholic faith. So how does the label catholic help in her case?

The reason we put labels on soup cans is so that we know what we’re going to find in it when we open it up. That’s also why (at least to some extent) it’s necessary to label people, too - not to “judge” them, but so that we know what we can expect from them, and what is a realistic way to interact with them.

I think that if we didn’t know each other’s labels we could enter into dialogue without expectation or ignorance. When I say I am non-denom you automatically get a sense of what you should expect from me instead of asking me yourself of what I believe. In fact, most of the time, if I even deny some of the perceptions of what I believe some catholics don’t believe me because of the pre-conceived notions of non-denoms. BUT if I say christian then it opens up to what beliefs we hold in common.

If you tell me you are a “Christian” but you don’t tell me what kind, how do I know if it’s safe to invite you to Rosary Group tonight? I still don’t know if you would be offended by that, or if you would jump at the chance.

If you met anyone what would keep you from asking them to join you in worshipping God? Even if it ‘offends’ them, that is on them. As long as you do it in a loving manner with good intentions it shouldn’t offend. I by no means am offended when asked to attend a Mass. I haven’t gone but I am not offended.

We, as christians, should not be scared to offend people by inviting them to be in the presence of the AllMighty. It’s one of the vices that christians have in today’s world. Why is it so hard to discuss Jesus but we can pick up a conversation at the water cooler about last night’s episode of the latest popular tv show?

But if you tell me that you are a Campbellite or a Baptist, then I would save my invitation for maybe a Bible study, or something like that, instead of Rosary Group, since that is more likely to be something that we would enjoy doing together.

Then you could be missing a chance to help someone get closer to God. There are plenty of converts from protestant churches to catholocism. God could be leading them on that path to the catholic church and your judgement that that isn’t something they would grow from, just because of their label and your pre-conceptions of what that label entails, could keep them away from the catholic church longer missing that moment with God.

Can you see why labels are just wrong?

 

[jmcrae]

Then you could be missing a chance to help someone get closer to God.

If he just tells me he’s “Christian” I don’t know whether he needs that or not.

There are plenty of converts from protestant churches to catholocism. God could be leading them on that path to the catholic church and your judgement that that isn’t something they would grow from, just because of their label and your pre-conceptions of what that label entails, could keep them away from the catholic church longer missing that moment with God.

If I felt called to invite him to a Rosary Group meeting, I’d be discerning about which one - I wouldn’t want to put a Fundamentalist into a group that is fanatical about the Fatima prophecies, unless I had some kind of a death wish; those people are a little close to the edge.

But a group that is a bit more diverse, or a bit more low-key, might be okay. The Rosary in any form is scary to Protestants, and I know that from personal experience - it took me four years even to be able to pick one up without this irrational fear that I’d turn into a pumpkin, although I didn’t mind being there when they were saying the prayers.

If my first experience with the Rosary had been with some of the people that I hang out with today, I’d have probably run screaming for the hills.

 

[Syele]

That’s certainly not how it is in my corner of the world, which is and always has been strongly Protestant. I didn’t know any Catholic children at all when I was growing up, that’s how scarce they were then. But the “P Word” was not forbidden and was common, even, after denominational identity. It still is that way among my family and friends. That is why I do a bit of a double-take when I hear someone identify themselves as just a Christian and then get annoyed when asked for a further identification. While we all are broadly Christian, there are significant doctrinal differences between the various Christian groups. It is strange to pretend otherwise, and to claim the broad title of “Christian” to signify small subset of belief. It comes across to me as disingenuous attempt to marginalize the beliefs of others, a way out of learning about other belief systems, and at worst, an attempt to redefine what the word “Christian” means.

“Protestant” really doesn’t narrow it down a whole lot more than “Christian”. Arguing doctrinal differences hardly fits cause Protestant doesn’t narrow it down at all.And a great many people really have no denomination they are affiliated with so it`slike like we are hiding our denomination.

I do not get annoyed if someone asks if I’m Protestant or even if they say I am one. I just plain don’t think of myself that way and I find it weird that people think I should change my vocabulary just to suit their perception of me. I was grown before I ever even heard the word Protestant and since then at least 95% of the time I do hear/see the word it is used in a context that involves Catholics in some way.

 

[ibkc]

“Protestant” really doesn’t narrow it down a whole lot more than “Christian”. Arguing doctrinal differences hardly fits cause Protestant doesn’t narrow it down at all.

Actually, it narrows it down a good bit, because the two very broad streams of Christianity - Apostolic and Protestant - are really very different from each other. If you just say you’re “Christian” then you’ve told me nothing beyond that you believe in the divinity of Christ. Actually, considering some of the crazy restorationist sects who don’t even believe in the same Christ but still call themselves Christian, by calling yourself simply Christian without elaborating further you’ve told me absolutely nothing. The thing is, if you pride yourself on just going by the Bible, as indicated above, there’s a name for that, and it’s helpful to use it. If someone tells me they’re a “Bible-believing Christian” I know exactly what they’re talking about.

I just plain don’t think of myself that way and I find it weird that people think I should change my vocabulary just to suit their perception of me. I was grown before I ever even heard the word Protestant and since then at least 95% of the time I do hear/see the word it is used in a context that involves Catholics in some way.

The term “Protestant” has been in use for nearly 500 years now; whether you were familiar with the term is irrelevant. (And you were never taught about the Reformation and its aftermath in school? That is kind of sad.)

 

[Syele]

Actually, it narrows it down a good bit, because the two very broad streams of Christianity - Apostolic and Protestant - are really very different from each other. If you just say you’re “Christian” then you’ve told me nothing beyond that you believe in the divinity of Christ. Actually, considering some of the crazy restorationist sects who don’t even believe in the same Christ but still call themselves Christian, by calling yourself simply Christian without elaborating further you’ve told me absolutely nothing. The thing is, if you pride yourself on just going by the Bible, as indicated above, there’s a name for that, and it’s helpful to use it. If someone tells me they’re a “Bible-believing Christian” I know exactly what they’re talking about.

The profile here does not say “Name the religion the majority of Catholics here want you to call yourself.” As I explained before, I did specify a theology just so you could all know just what I believed. It caused an incredible amount of confusion. Beyond that when I talk about Denominations, Catholics here go nuts about how rude I was to expect them to know all about all the zillions of Protestant denominations. If I tell you someone is upset, if I don’t someone is upset. I cant please everyone, so I will call myself what I am comfortable calling myself.

The term “Protestant” has been in use for nearly 500 years now; whether you were familiar with the term is irrelevant. (And you were never taught about the Reformation and its aftermath in school? That is kind of sad.)

Not only did they not teach about the Reformation they also avoided mentioning the Pilgrims had a religion or anything that might accidentally use the name of God in the school. Never said the Pledge after elementary school either. The state of the American public school system is terribly sad, but yet another topic. I have studied such things outside of their sad institution.

Weather a person is familiar with a term is hardly irrelevant. You are telling me that I must call myself a protestant because you think I should despite the fact that its not how I think of myself, not one person has ever introduced themselves to me as a Protestant, and it really doesn’t matter in the slightest since I have no problem with others calling me it and you can easily see what I believe by reading my past posts or asking me.

Don’t pretend labels tell you so much. They don’t. There are people on this forum who put Catholic in that field that are so charitable, so loving and always exhibiting the fruit of the Holy Spirit so much that if all Catholics were like them, I would convert. There are many others labeled Catholic who are the opposite of that.

Where is the campaign to force Cafeteria Catholics to self-identify to differentiate them from the rest of the Catholics?

 

[pneuma07]

Fine contributions ! i’ll try to put together some of my first
reflections.

• Although we see such a variety of doctrines, although some groups use “christian” within ther self-denomination in disputable ways, I do hope this word will never become meaningless.
  And certainly it is not perceived like that in contexts of peoples overwhelmingly following other religions, or in highly secularized western environments.
• I do not guess those stating “I am a christian” without specification want to hide anything. I guess they are saying what they do feel.
  What we can understand is that , for theoretical or practical reason, they are ( more or less) unaffiliated,
  they normally have a protestant background and so on.
• the word “protestant” appears to be perceived in very different ways.
• "“Simply/just christianity” can probably be regarded as a (new ?) stream ( sort of) in itself. Does anybody agree with that ?

While there possibly are as many statements of faith (explicit or implicit I mean) as there are "“simply christians”,
there likely are some common elements in attitudes and perceptions which could be usefully considered.

The size of the trend is such that we have to consider it carefully. ( the rationale for this thread ).

 

[AnAtheist]

We often find one of at least two other descriptive terms besides protestant: evangelic or reformed. But they got to identify, in particular the second one, more definite branches within protestantism, than the whole of it. In swiss cantons , as you
warscheinlich know, both are used together: evangelic reformed church.

Yeah, now here’s something good about the Catholic Church/Faith: We know more or less exactly, what we are talking about. Can’t say that about protestantism, it’s total confusion.

 

[pneuma07]

I believe that in many cases it is simply the fact that as Catholicism has declined on the world’s political stage …
In addition, a refocusing on what many feel to be core elements of Christianity (à la Mere Christianity, Alpha course, etc) through para-church organizations and popular Christian culture has removed the desire for many individuals to identify with denominational distinctives. Reading George Barna on the topic would likely give you more insight than I could.

Hope this helps!

Thanks for the insight Non Serviam !
On the first point, speaking about the last generations in the USA, we can hardly say that Catholicism can be experienced
as declining. I’d rather say that the mindset of many
protestant-background believers is growing ever more removed from the catholic origins of the whole of western Christianity, from Reformation and so on. So I’d agree that for those brothers catholicism does seem to matter less than for their grand-parents,
but not because the environment is less and less catholic ( I guess this is not factually the case in most of the States), but rather cause the religious path started from catholicism through the Reformation has gone on and on. Which leads to the second point.

*Barna expects to see believers “choosing from a proliferation of options, weaving together a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal ‘church’ of the individual.” The phrase “personal ‘church’ of the individual” must be the most mind-spinning phrase ever written about the church of Jesus Christ. Could it be that we evangelical Protestants, who have done more to fragment Christendom than any other group, are now taking that to the logical extreme: a church at the individual level, each person creating a personal “church” experience? At any other point in church history, “personal church” would be nonsensical. In today’s America, it’s the Next Big Thing.
Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam argued compellingly in Bowling Alone (Simon & Schuster, 2001) that since 1960, Americans’ involvement in social groups and churches has dropped 25 to 50 percent. So we can’t help but wonder if this same societal withdrawal from institutions is now bringing us a do-it-yourself church. As Roger E. Olson writes in The Mosaic of Christian Belief (InterVarsity, 2002): “Nowhere in the Great Tradition of Christianity before the twentieth century can one find the uniquely modern phenomenon of 'churchless Christians.’” *

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/january/13.69.html?start=2

This quotation is important for our issue, IMHO, not only since it is related to the author you mentioned, but also since “personal church” ( ) or, in other words “churchless christians”
( a more understandable expression ), are considered as the possible Next Big Thing.

Now, “churchless christians” do certainly substantially overlap with “simply/just christians”.

And this atomization is realistically regarded as the likely “logical extreme”
of protestantism by the opinionist in that evangelical journal.
The same view I was humbly considering when proposing the horrible term “super-protestantism”, as key to at least an element of the trend.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Thanks for the insight Non Serviam !
On the first point, speaking about the last generations in the USA, we can hardly say that Catholicism can be experienced
as declining. I’d rather say that the mindset of many
protestant-background believers is growing ever more removed from the catholic origins of the whole of western Christianity, from Reformation and so on. So I’d agree that for those brothers catholicism does seem to matter less than for their grand-parents,
but not because the environment is less and less catholic ( I guess this is not factually the case in most of the States), but rather cause the religious path started from catholicism through the Reformation has gone on and on.

Pneuma,

I’m glad that you found my comments useful. I’d like to clarify the last one since it appears that I wasn’t totally clear. I didn’t mean to imply that Catholicism itself was in decline, but rather that it is perceived to play less of a role in the world political process.

To provide a more concrete American example, I don’t believe that some of the concerns that were attached to JFK’s presidential campaign (i.e. that America would become a vassal state to the Vatican or that church law would play a role in jurisprudence) would be considered credible by more than a tiny percentage of the population today. The depoliticisation of religion seems to have gone so far the Mormon roots of one candidate and the attempt to portray another candidate as a member of the Islamic faith made little or no impact on their public perception.

Given this depoliticisation, I believe that many believers don’t see Catholicism as part of their faith practice and given that don’t see themselves as protesting anything, opting rather to self-identify as “Christian”.

(Barna quotation snipped in the interest of space)

Which leads to the second point.

This quotation is important for our issue, IMHO, not only since it is related to the author you mentioned, but also since “personal church” ( ) or, in other words “churchless christians”
( a more understandable expression ), are considered as the possible Next Big Thing.

Now, “churchless christians” do certainly substantially overlap with “simply/just christians”.

And this atomization is realistically regarded as the likely “logical extreme”
of protestantism by the opinionist in that evangelical journal.
The same view I was humbly considering when proposing the horrible term “super-protestantism”, as key to at least an element of the trend.

It is unfortunate that the author of the piece didn’t read a broader selection of Barna’s writings. I hope you will have an opportunity to do so. From a sociological perspective, it is Barna’s primary intent to report on the trends that he sees developing, rather than passing judgment on them. He correctly observes that currently there is a tendency in some quarters toward atomisation, although it certainly isn’t the norm among Protestants.

Barna also points out that many of these individuals as well as members of traditional denominations are becoming more involved in parachurch organizations as well as other ministry networks. These organizations in some cases are coming to resemble churches more and more (understanding a distinction in the use of the word “church” from the common use by those of a sacramental persuasion).

It is a similar phenomenon to the increase in participation by some Catholics in apostolates and personal prelatures (to name two models) vis a vis their participation in their local parish.

Some argue that further atomisation is inevitable while others put forth the notion that networking and fellowship across (or without) traditional denominational affiliations is part of a trend toward refocusing on the essentials of the faith and an opportunity for increased unity.

As those in the Catholic church know well, 100 years does not tell the whole tale on change within the church. It would be interesting to be around in another 100-200 years and see where these trends will go.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the topic in a friendly way.

 

[pneuma07]

I didn’t mean to imply that Catholicism itself was in decline, but rather that it is perceived to play less of a role in the world political process.

To provide a more concrete American example, I don’t believe that some of the concerns that were attached to JFK’s presidential campaign (i.e. that America would become a vassal state to the Vatican or that church law would play a role in jurisprudence) would be considered credible by more than a tiny percentage of the population today. …
Given this depoliticisation, I believe that many believers don’t see Catholicism as part of their faith practice and given that don’t see themselves as protesting anything, opting rather to self-identify as “Christian”.

)

Dear Non Serviam,

                  about a decreased  fear  about Catholicism

I can easily agree.

Wouldn’t you agree that this couples with
non-catholic western Christianity getting further and further removed from its catholic root and at the same time reformation and reformers. You perceive that even here on CAF, when
catholic members insist quoting Luther or speaking about him. Most of non-catholics show they care little to nothing about him, or even about other reformers. I guess, in particular, that the average “simply Christian” does not care significantly more about Luther ( or Zwingly) than about Aquinas or Bellarmino.

 

[sterryfamily]

Doesn’t anybody read a history book from time to time?
The term “protestant” was brought up after the Reichstag in Speyer 1529 where some German nobles supporting Martin Luther and the reformation protested against a decision of the emperor Karl V. who wanted to revoke some rights regarding religious freedom granted in 1526.
The term has nothing to do with protesting against the Church or the Pope.

So you’re saying they are really still in communion with the Church?

Hooray! :bounce:

 

[pneuma07]

From a sociological perspective, it is Barna’s primary intent to report on the trends that he sees developing, rather than passing judgment on them. He correctly observes that currently there is a tendency in some quarters toward atomisation, although it certainly isn’t the norm among Protestants.

Barna also points out that many of these individuals as well as members of traditional denominations are becoming more involved in parachurch organizations as well as other ministry networks. These organizations in some cases are coming to resemble churches more and more (understanding a distinction in the use of the word “church” from the common use by those of a sacramental persuasion).

It is a similar phenomenon to the increase in participation by some Catholics in apostolates and personal prelatures (to name two models) vis a vis their participation in their local parish.

Some argue that further atomisation is inevitable while others put forth the notion that **networking and fellowship **across (or without) traditional denominational affiliations is part of a trend toward refocusing on the essentials of the faith and an opportunity for increased unity.
As those in the Catholic church know well, 100 years does not tell the whole tale on change within the church. It would be interesting to be around in another 100-200 years and see where these trends will go.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the topic in a friendly way.

One of the merits of your post, IMHO, is offering a window on the
complexity and multiplicity of the trend we are examining.
Are, eg, “churchless christians” really churchless or “parachurch” ?

Do you see an opportunity for increased unity through atomization, or “para-atomization” ? One could say that reached the uttermost disunity, one can only get it better. That certainly would not be the whole of the picture ( I know that’s not your point).
Maybe we’re as the blind men around the elephant, perceiving it differently according to which part we happen to touch.

What appears clear is that much is changing and will change. I wonder eg about inter-church relations, ecumenical progress…

What if the Catholic Church should eventually remain without institutional subjects to deal with ?
We’d probably better think less about quotations by Luther ( with due respect for lutheran brothers ) and more about how addressing " just christians" , parachurch and churchless christians, doing so for what those brothers are and believe.

What is your personal opinion about the “logical extreme” ( of protestantism) view about the trend de quo ? Any merits in it ?

I thank you.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Dear Non Serviam,

                  about a decreased  fear  about Catholicism

I can easily agree.

Wouldn’t you agree that this couples with
non-catholic western Christianity getting further and further removed from its catholic root and at the same time reformation and reformers. You perceive that even here on CAF, when
catholic members insist quoting Luther or speaking about him. Most of non-catholics show they care little to nothing about him, or even about other reformers. I guess, in particular, that the average “simply Christian” does not care significantly more about Luther ( or Zwingly) than about Aquinas or Bellarmino.

Pneuma,

I’m glad I was able to clarify my previous point. I’ll do my best to respond to this post and the next one for you, but sleep is beckoning, so I may need to clarify again before we are done.

I believe that you are correct that a fair number of non-Catholics here aren’t interested in rehashing old debates (some are, as I’m sure you are well aware). They place themselves more in a non-denominational stream (trans-denominational may be better in some cases) with a focus on doctrine and belief that unites (best typified by “Mere Christianity” and the Alpha course as two examples) rather than some of the old formulations of the faith which were informed by polemics and written in many cases by authors that still held a number of philosophical constructs in common with Catholicism.

Since these people are no longer defining their faith in terms of Catholicism, it would seem to follow that they would also not be interested in defining it in terms of an opposition to Catholicism. Rather, they feel a freedom to look at some of the historical sources of piety, theology and worship and consider their relevance (for example Richard Foster’s Renovare movement as well as books by non-Catholics (non-Orthodox and non-Anglican as well) that address Mary, the church fathers and similar subjects for the “simply Christian” reader.

I’ll pause here and move to address your next post.