Which protestant denomination is most close in doctrine to the catholic church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosslynV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you have ancestry from the British Isles chances are pretty good you belong to the church of England. You didnt have much of a choice in the matter.

Of all the denominations we did not leave the Catholic Church willingly. We were taken and then looted by Henry VIII. Last time I posted about anything, a gentleman by the name of Khalid slammed me pretty hard for the crime or being a nosebleed Episcopalian, a term I found to be hilarious. Khalid, I’m glad you found a faith you can live with, but you will gain more converts if you dont use such a hard core approach. Probably a negative leftover from another religion. Lighten up dude!

I understand there’s a movement in the Anglican communion to actually get back with the Catholic Church on the condition that our Anglican heritage is preserved, and the Vatican is considering this. I guess the American Episcopal church is annoying the rest by ordaining women and gays. Im not here to bellyache about someone’s bigotry, but its great to see us remembering that we were Catholics long ago and wanting to reunite with the ancient church. Not much of a stretch for us since we do pretty much the same liturgical stuff.
We are your closest allies and just maybe we can straighten this out after 500 years. 👍

Wow the concept just boggles the mind!
 
bubbawanda said:
If you have ancestry from the British Isles chances are pretty good you belong to the church of England. You didnt have much of a choice in the matter.

Of all the denominations we did not leave the Catholic Church willingly. We were taken and then looted by Henry VIII. Last time I posted about anything, a gentleman by the name of Khalid slammed me pretty hard for the crime or being a nosebleed Episcopalian, a term I found to be hilarious. Khalid, I’m glad you found a faith you can live with, but you will gain more converts if you dont use such a hard core approach. Probably a negative leftover from another religion. Lighten up dude!

I understand there’s a movement in the Anglican communion to actually get back with the Catholic Church on the condition that our Anglican heritage is preserved, and the Vatican is considering this. I guess the American Episcopal church is annoying the rest by ordaining women and gays. Im not here to bellyache about someone’s bigotry, but its great to see us remembering that we were Catholics long ago and wanting to reunite with the ancient church. Not much of a stretch for us since we do pretty much the same liturgical stuff.
We are your closest allies and just maybe we can straighten this out after 500 years. 👍

Wow the concept just boggles the mind!
Click to expand...
Hi bubbawanda. Good post, but keep in mind that we Catholics have a different understanding of “full communion” than e.g. the ELCA - TEC full communion agreement.
 
Im not seeing that as insurmountable. Other denoms have bigger issues.
Personally this is quite handy. I live in a rural area and the closest church to my house is a Catholic Church. No I dont think its worth losing sleep over. Maybe thats what is meant by “surrender”. Sort of my take away message.
My Anglican pedigree (documented) goes all the way back and my family were Scottish clergy among other things.
Nope, coming “across the street” to you guys would be no big deal at all for me. Im still a pathetic sinner no matter what side of the road im on. Most of the other denoms would be a little more conflicted to a cradle Episcopalian.
God bless the Catholic Church and maybe someday we’ll be together again.🤷
 
bubbawanda said:
Im not seeing that as insurmountable.
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to my comment (about the Roman understanding of “full communion”) then I would say that I don’t see it as insurmountable either :). But I don’t think we’re there yet.
 
batman1973 said:
But, when you think about it, the SSPXers are Protestant! I mean, they ARE protesting!😃
Click to expand...
Sure, if you want to treat the word “Protestant” as if it did not already have a more specific meaning than its name signifies. I suppose we ought to call PETA members Protestants as well.
 
JonNC said:
No. He wouldn’t live by the caricature often presented about sola scriptura (even more tragic is that some non-Catholic groups actually practice that caricature).
Click to expand...
Then doesn’t that mean it’s not a caricature after all? 🤷
 
I was raised Methodist and took a long “walk around the block” before joining the Catholic church. The last congregation I was with were Messianic Believers. But they didn’t consider themselves Protestants. But their services are very much like the Catholic church but have a strong lean toward Jewish tradition this group was also “spirit-fulled” so they tended to be rather spontaneous at times and rather loud. They blew shofars ect.

I found the Catholic church much more at peace and reverent. And this is the 1st place I have been where they don’t tear other churches apart in the pulpit. It’s a rude practice that I have seen in many denominations. My dad used to say that even if you blow everyone elses candle out, yours will only seem to burn brighter - but it really doesn’t!

It is one of the reasons that helped me join the Church. I was made to feel loved and welcome and my other membership, as I was studying, was not torn apart or ridiculed because of it’s differences. I found that VERY refreshing. Sharing with my friends from my old congregation that I was joining the Church was met with disgust, pity and anger. I worked in a Christian store that was own by Protestants and I had feared losing my job.

My co-workers where very supportive and very protective of my “rights” The Lord had his hand in my staying, I’m sure!
 
Originally Posted by JonNC
No. He wouldn’t live by the caricature often presented about sola scriptura (even more tragic is that some non-Catholic groups actually practice that caricature).
Click to expand...
Randy_Carson said:
Then doesn’t that mean it’s not a caricature after all? 🤷
Click to expand...
Randy makes a good point, Jon. Shouldn’t you have said “stereotype” rather than “caricature”?
 
I agree with you the Catholic Church as ive experienced it is the least pushy, the least abrasive and the most secure in themselves. Peace. Rosaries. Latin Mass. (even tho I dont understand any!) Mantillas!
The Catholic Church sure picked a winner in Pope Francis. They could well experience a resurgence in the number of faithful.
Pope Francis can keep the Church vital into the 21st century.
Forgive my tongue in cheek, but its pretty good to be a repenting sinner right now!😃
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Sure, if you want to treat the word “Protestant” as if it did not already have a more specific meaning than its name signifies. I suppose we ought to call PETA members Protestants as well.
Click to expand...
Even the meaning the term protestant has isn’t what it initially signified. By the original meaning, the USCCB is strongly protestant currently for its stand against the HHS Mandate, since the original meaning was a protest against government actions limiting religious freedom.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Actually, it sounds more like he believes God would be opposed to it for Christians.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon,

From the quote that you posted, and also from your comment, it would seem that you are portraying Luther as having rather conventional, and also what would be considered (by us) to be Christian beliefs and teachings regarding marriage. Your post does not document when this Luther quote was written. Could you document the source of your quote?

In fact, Luther actually claimed to have written wonderfully about marriage:

“Not one of the fathers ever wrote anything notable or particularly good concerning the married state.” Martin Luther, in Hartman Grisar, “Luther”, Volume IV, pg. 132

Actually Luther wrote a number of very strange and un-Christian things about marriage (and sex), and in fact, his writings became more bizarre over the years. As an example, in 1530 he wrote that secular authorities should put a wife to death if she refused to submit sexually to her husband. Talk about a “War on Women”!

“Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?” Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 45 : The Christian in Society II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 45, p. 34). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Please note that Luther is quoting Scripture in defense of this horrific recommendation. This begs the question as to whether we can consider Luther to be even a decent Scriptural Exegete. If we are forced to conclude that Luther’s interpretation of Scripture was extremely faulty in this case, then why would presume that he did a better job with other subjects, such as for example, Sola Scriptura, or Salvation by Faith Alone?

The above is only one of the worst of many examples of Luther’s other recommendations and teachings on marriage and sex. If you are interested, I could post some of the others. They are shocking.

God Bless You Jon, Topper
 
EphelDuath said:
I don’t believe I’ve indicated the contrary? All I’ve objected to is the mischaracterization of Luther as a good-willed mostly Catholic guy that just had a few bumps with authority.
Click to expand...
I agree. The three terms are: “good willed”, “mostly Catholic guy”, and a 'few bumps with authority".

As for 'good willed" he recommended the secular authorities put to death Jews, 'reluctant wives", Catholics, Anabaptists, and of course the peasants, of which more than 100,000 died after he recommended that they be “slaughtered without mercy,” furiously quoting Scripture as God wanted him to of course.

Of course Protestants have no choice but to do whatever necessary to portray Luther in as good a light as possible. After all, many of them bear his name and all carry a theology which was either based on or dependent upon Luther’s authority to revolt against the Church. As such, Protestantism looks foolish when Luther looks foolish. The strategy of course is to limit the information such that Luther not look foolish.

God Bless You Ephel, Topper
 
Topper17 said:
I agree. The three terms are: “good willed”, “mostly Catholic guy”, and a 'few bumps with authority".

As for 'good willed" he recommended the secular authorities put to death Jews, 'reluctant wives", Catholics, Anabaptists, and of course the peasants, of which more than 100,000 died after he recommended that they be “slaughtered without mercy,” furiously quoting Scripture as God wanted him to of course.

Of course Protestants have no choice but to do whatever necessary to portray Luther in as good a light as possible. After all, many of them bear his name and all carry a theology which was either based on or dependent upon Luther’s authority to revolt against the Church. As such, Protestantism looks foolish when Luther looks foolish. The strategy of course is to limit the information such that Luther not look foolish.

God Bless You Ephel, Topper
Click to expand...
I will get back to your previous post this weekend. As for this:

I am, and have been most willing to criticize Luther when need be. And there are plenty of opportunities for that. I am just thankful that I don’t have as voluminous a paper trail to be quoted, twisted, misconstrued, and spun every which way.
Last I checked I was baptized in the name of the Triune God. It is the name of Christ that I carry. The term Lutheran, applied as an insult by the opponents of the evangelical churches, the Catholics of the Augsburg Confession, happens to simply be a name, not unlike Roman Catholic Church.
Most of protestantism has little to do with Luther. They are not from the Lutheran Reformation, and there is not a large amount of Lutheran theology that they accept. I would surmise that most protestants couldn’t care less if Luther looks foolish or not.

When Luther looks foolish, Luther looks foolish, jusdt like when Ecke looks foolish, or Pope Leo looks foolish, they look foolish.

It is utterly ironic for a Catholic to condemn Luther for his words against the anabaptists, Jews or any others, from that era. Certainly, a plank and speck situation. Neither of us have room to talk in that way.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
It is utterly ironic for a Catholic to condemn Luther for his words against the anabaptists, Jews or any others, from that era. Certainly, a plank and speck situation. Neither of us have room to talk in that way.
Click to expand...
How’s that ironic? The Inquisition didn’t found the Catholic Church, Christ did. Regardless of what you want to say about your distance from Luther, the fact of the matter is that the reason you’re not Catholic is because of Luther’s apostasy. And therefore, for your position to be tenable, Luther has to be right about something.
 
So how does that work for us Anglican types? I mean we’re not Catholic but were not protestant either. Oh whoops we are both!😊
 
EphelDuath said:
How’s that ironic? The Inquisition didn’t found the Catholic Church, Christ did. Regardless of what you want to say about your distance from Luther, the fact of the matter is that the reason you’re not Catholic is because of Luther’s apostasy. And therefore, for your position to be tenable, Luther has to be right about something.
Click to expand...
And a faithful little monk in Germany didn’t found The Evangelical Catholic Church of the Augsburg Confession, Christ did. 🤷 Where Luther is correct in doctrine, we will admit our closeness to him. Where he is not, we will disown him. He was human, as are all of His people.

There is a line of faulty reasoning that some Roman Catholics follow, and I think it stems from an uninformed perspective. It centers upon painting Luther as some magnificently important “prophet” to Lutherans (which is absurd, as Lutherans are bound to the Augsburg Confession - we do not follow any man), then engaging in ad hominem attacks on the man as a means to discredit the entire Evangelical Catholic movement (typically by taking this or that particular quote out of context, misinterpreting his favorite rhetorical device, hyperbole, or taking offense at the earthiness of the times). If one were to actually learn something about Lutherans, they would find their witch-hunt rather silly. Here’s a nice place to start: bookofconcord.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top