The Protestant Reformation was not a split. It was a whole series of schisms. The original schisms were of the Orthodox churches and the Church of England. The latter is interesting because it was driven by a Trump-like figure (Henry 8th), and it was that I was thinking of.
4 Likes
I’m well aware (although I’m not sure what you mean by including the Orthodox Churches and the Church of England in the same breath, as the latter are considered Protestants and the former aren’t). I just meant that while there are a whole bunch of tiny sects that have separated themselves from the Catholic Church since the end of the Reformation, that was the last time that the Church really had to fear for its continued existence.
There are about 15 million “Independent Catholics” (about 1.5% of all Catholics), who consider themselves Catholic but reject the supremacy of the Pope (discounting the Orthodox Churches, who have always rejected the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the sole inheritor to the “Catholic” descriptor).
Again, I don’t think that a number much more significant than that will be split off from the Catholic Church until at least the next papal election. Although I’d like to change my previous prediction: I think a formal split will only occur if an ultra-progressive pope is elected. If an ultra-conservative pope is elected, I think the more likely result is that people will just walk away in a disorganized fashion.
1 Like
Nicene Creed which is part of Anglican liturgy:
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
The Anglicans have both Protestant-leaning and Catholic-leaning wings but consider themselves to be a catholic church. Periodically Archbishops of Canterbury have talks with the Pope on reunion (Ratzinger rather put the dampers on this recently) as do the Orthodox Churches. Notice reunion not union.
In the US you have the Episcopalian wing which explicitly calls out the possession of bishops which for some reason is regarded by Protestants as a no-no.
However, this is OT and I only bother with it because really if I don’t use a theology degree ever, what was the point of doing it in the first place?
[edit - this last sentence is ironic, as increasingly I regard the whole thing as nonsensical.]
3 Likes
I agree, though calling Trump Donald XLV would reduce him to sounding like some sort of SUV, there is that. “The Donald XLV is a mid-range SUV with a twin turbo engine, terrible fuel consumption and erratic steering.” (XLV brings him down to size. I suspect he’d like to be XXXXV.)
If somebody pretends not to know who I mean by Henry 8th or George 3rd, too bad.
2 Likes
No, no, no. The most recent Presidents would be:
George II
William IV
George III
Barack I
Donald I
5 Likes
6 Likes
Do we want to move this to a separate topic?
So do Lutherans. Even so, I’d hesitate to call a religion that names itself after the catalyst of the Protestant Reformation anything but “Protestant.”
Although it may be closer to Roman Catholicism than most other Protestant traditions, they still split off from Rome during the Reformation, for largely the same reasons as the rest of the Protestants. I don’t see how continuing to use the Nicene Creed makes them less Protestant.
I’d note, cynically, that Rome has reason to spin it that way. Their official position is, to quote Wikipedia:
that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ, that its bishops are the successors of Christ’s apostles, and that the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom primacy was conferred by Jesus Christ. It maintains that it practises the original Christian faith, reserving infallibility, passed down by sacred tradition.
In other words, that all other denominations of Christianity are imperfect derivatives of Roman Catholicism. To quote a hymn from my youth:
We are One in the Spirit, we are One in the Lord
And we pray that our unity may one day be restored.
…The implication being that all Christianity was once unified (under the Catholic Church), and that reunion is possible.
As for the Anglican side of things, well, Archbishop of Canterbury was originally a title within the Catholic Church, so reunion makes sense from that side as well. In fact, I’d think that would be the only somewhat-convincing argument to say that they are more Catholic than Protestant: that their organizational structure is still derivative of that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Are we really going to drill down to individual beliefs as determining whether a religion is Protestant or Catholic? I find “part of a tradition that split off from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation” to be a much more useful definition of “Protestant.”
…Also, with the grain of salt that comes from using Wikipedia as a source, but every page that I’ve been to researching my posts on this topic, Anglicanism has been referred to as one of the Protestant denominations. For instance:
From the time of Augustine until the 16th century, the Archbishops of Canterbury were in full communion with the See of Rome and usually received the pallium from the Pope. During the English Reformation, the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Catholic Church. Thomas Cranmer became the first Protestant holder of the office in 1533, while Reginald Pole was the last Catholic in the position, serving from 1556 to 1558 during the Counter-Reformation.
2 Likes
The Rump wing of Catholicism is strong in Africa and S. America too.
May his anger poison his life forever.
2 Likes
That, right there, is a good summation of the Catholic view on things.
An Orthodox view might be that the Church was indeed handed off to Peter, who then became bishop of Rome, but that being Bishop of Rome was not meant to thenceforth be the ultimate, unquestioned leader of the Church: among the various leaders of the Church, the Roman pontiff was supposed to merely be the first among equals. The Roman Catholic Church thus unfairly usurped the larger Catholic tradition under one leader, and the Orthodox Catholic Churches exist in the intended spirit, and are the true continuation of the original tradition.
A Protestant view might be that Peter was being handed leadership of Christ’s followers, but not of any formally organized Church, as no such thing existed at the time. The corruption of the Catholic Church, through such excesses as indulgences, prove that the infallibile leadership claimed by Rome is a farce. Thus, the traditions of the Catholic Church cannot be trusted, and the degree of adherence to scripture alone (sola scriptura) determines whether a particular denomination is legitimate. Of course, each Protestant denomination claims to be the one following scripture the most perfectly.
A Mormon might say that there is a single true mantle of leadership of the followers of Christ, but it was lost long ago, restored to Joseph Smith, and has been passed down to Smith’s successors as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The leaders of the other LDS churches each claim that that mantle has been passed to them, as opposed to the current mainstream LDS President.
5 Likes
I don’t. I’ve accidentally gone OT, I’m not deleting it to avoid confusion, but my ironic comment should, I think, make clear where I stand on this. Wittgenstein. “It is a language game with some similarity to the game of thumb-catching.”
Ok, this is just straight snark, but…
15 Likes
And of course, an atheist might say that this whole controversy represents a power struggle among fallible men, wrestling for prestige and position in the absence of any evidence of Divine Intent more compelling than a cacophanous chorus of God-Told-Me-Sos.
6 Likes
Please let me move in with you. I can live under the stairs.
4 Likes
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters on Friday that the Trump administration is going to manage the shutdown differently than the last time. “We’re not going to weaponize it.”
this is what i consider so frustrating about the news media. it’s like nobody has even considered that the administration wants the government shutdown.
key positions are already understaffed, or staffed with people seeking to disrupt the agency they’ve been appointed to.
we’ve got a massive revenue reducing tax plan. massive military spending increases, with more apparently on the way. a disdain or outright hatred of safety net programs.
where do we see them supporting the basic functions of government in the first place?
of course the first thing out of their mouth is about weaponization of the shutdown.
the only silver lining is they might not be smart enough to figure out how.
11 Likes
don’t forget the gnostics! 
4 Likes
Chatted with my “Deep State” sibling this morning.
She was pissed. She had travel booked for next week and had to cancel it. Luckily she had printed out all her reservations because the domain logins had all ready been shutdown.
Thieves. Liars. Murderers. Hypocrites and Bastards.
6 Likes
Oh, he gets advice all right. The best advice. (Unready = illadvised).
But are we really ready for this? Because Aethelraed the Unraed served two terms for a total of 37 years.
I have no idea whatsoever why but one side of my family had a series of these Anglo-Saxon names from the mid-19th century on, Alfreds and Edwards,and an Edgar. Then in a fit of I also know not what my grandparents gave my father a Norse name. Guess who ended up in charge of a boat during the D-day invasion? Nominative determinism at work there.
Depressingly, so is the name Donald. World ruler. If Trump didn’t mean a drum, it would be even more depressing. But a drum is highly appropriate.
Of course, all the Donald Trumps whose only ambition is to become CPAs or move up to second tier support would work against this, but we don’t hear from them.
4 Likes
Sorry for being dense, but what domain names would be shut down? Wouldn’t travel be all private domains?
4 Likes