Not Catholic or Protestant?

[Aqualung]

Hmm, I'm a bit familiar with Restorationism, but not really. Why wouldn't Restorationists fit under "Protestant"?

No. Protestants came out of the protestant reformation. They tried to reform the church. Restorationists generally came later, and tried to restore the church.

 

[lilithu]

1) It depends on what you mean by Universalist, and how you are applying it.

By universalist, I mean belief in universal salvation. ALL are within God's Grace. No one is condemned.

 

[James the Persian]

People typically separate groups based on their traditions. THe Tradition of Cardinals, and the authority of the Pope, and the practice of rituals belongs to Catholocism. THe Prace of all the previous minus the Pope, is Orthodox. However, all other denomiantions - without a pope or preist are protestant (besides the cults). Non-denomiantionlism is itself a denomiantion of Protestism, they just dont "take sides" by naming their church under a certain name.

We are not just the same as the Roman Catholics minus the Pope and we certainly do not have Cardinals. We would never call ourselves a denomination either, for that is to implicitly accept the branch theory, which is heretical. From, my perspective, as an ex-Protestant convert to Orthodoxy, non-denominationals are Protestants who would rather not be labeled as such. That's fine and I'll repect it, but non-denominational theology is decidedly Protestant and decidely not like the theology of any of the churches that pre-date the Reformation (and that isn't just us and the RCC).

James

 

[James the Persian]

I have no beef with Catholics or the Orthodox, but I do not teach the doctrines of Martin Luther, he merely opened a door toa new Way of thinking. You should appreciate his contrabutions. Because of him, the BIble was translated in other languages, and since you read the English version of the bible, you are reading of his results. And of course the majority of mankind has be converted becuase of an translated bible. (by Majority I mean billions over time).

This is only true in the west. The Christian east had always translated the Bible into the language of the local populace. We never had a single language dominate like Latin, so Luther may have helped get translations made in western Europe, but they'd been doing that in the eastern part of the undivided Catholic Church, since the very beginning. Surely you've heard of Greek, Copticv and Syriac versions of the Scriptures? And what was the first thing Sts Cyril and Methodius did when evangelising the Slavs? Invent a system of renedring Slavonic in writing for the illiterate people, so that they could translate the Gospel into Slavonic. The dominance of Latin in the west was a peculiarity of the See of Rome, not a universal Church practice.

James

 

[athanasius]

I'd categorize all denominations that got their theology from Luther and those that followed Protestant with the exception of LDS.

I second that! It's just a historical fact! frubals for you!:yes:

 

[athanasius]

This is only true in the west. The Christian east had always translated the Bible into the language of the local populace. We never had a single language dominate like Latin, so Luther may have helped get translations made in western Europe, but they'd been doing that in the eastern part of the undivided Catholic Church, since the very beginning. Surely you've heard of Greek, Copticv and Syriac versions of the Scriptures? And what was the first thing Sts Cyril and Methodius did when evangelising the Slavs? Invent a system of renedring Slavonic in writing for the illiterate people, so that they could translate the Gospel into Slavonic. The dominance of Latin in the west was a peculiarity of the See of Rome, not a universal Church practice.

James

Actually thats a myth. The Roman Catholic church also translated many copies of scriptures into the vernacular of the people and handed them out. The printing press was what really made it "seem" like Luther did all the revolutionary work om this even though he didn't and was not a pioneer in any sense on this issue. The first english copy of the bible was written in the 8th century. There were over 9 different translations of the bible into German before Luther was even born and over 20 more additional copies of the bible in German before Luther ever handed out his own "copies". These were given to the people to study by the Catholic Church way before Luther ever came on the scene. These have been historically documented and around the turn of the 20tbh century some of these copies were on dispaly in a London musuem. A good book to read on this is Called "Where we Got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church" by Henry Graham. It cover alot of the history and other historical myths that non-Catholic accuse Catholics of. By the way Henry Graham was a convert to the Catholic faith from the presbyterian church.


Dominus Vo Biscum:liturgy:

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am non- denomonational. ( i guess).

i think all of our churches main difference is that the Pastor is the Head of the congregation. He is not voted in or out, we don't take votes or have a deacon board. God gives the pastor a vision and he follows it ( no voting to see if we want to pave the parking lot.)

we have no titles on all churches and no conventions ( but we do have campmeetings).

you don't offically join a denomonation( baptist, church of christ, etc. ) you just join the " body of Christ" and the local church.

If he is not voted in or out How do you get a new one.?
How do you sack one?
Does he own the church that he holds so much power?

In the Church of England The Church wardens and parish church council make decisions about all church matters.
The Priest administers to the parish .
He is offered to the parish by the Bishop.
The parish vote to accept him or not.
Bishops some times get their way by offering no one else.
But it would be pointless appointing a High Church Anglican Priest to a low church parish.

 

[James the Persian]

Actually thats a myth. The Roman Catholic church also translated many copies of scriptures into the vernacular of the people and handed them out. The printing press was what really made it "seem" like Luther did all the revolutionary work om this even though he didn't and was not a pioneer in any sense on this issue. The first english copy of the bible was written in the 8th century. There were over 9 different translations of the bible into German before Luther was even born and over 20 more additional copies of the bible in German before Luther ever handed out his own "copies". These were given to the people to study by the Catholic Church way before Luther ever came on the scene. These have been historically documented and around the turn of the 20tbh century some of these copies were on dispaly in a London musuem. A good book to read on this is Called "Where we Got the bible, our debt to the Catholic church" by Henry Graham. It cover alot of the history and other historical myths that non-Catholic accuse Catholics of. By the way Henry Graham was a convert to the Catholic faith from the presbyterian church.


Dominus Vo Biscum:liturgy:

What I said was not a myth. I never said that Luther did more than help get translations going in the west. He did, but that doesn't mean I said he was the first (actually there were a number of Bibles in western vernacular languages that pre-date his attempt, you are quite correct). However, the fact is that Latin did dominate in the west in a way which was not true of the east. There were periods when Latin was decidedly the only language promoted for religious matters and other languages were frowned upon. This simply did not happen in the east. Now, I would suggest that the issue that caused this peculiarity has less to do with the Roman church than it does with the political realities of the Frankish kings who dominated Europe and tried to ape the western Emperors, including in language, hence the term lingua franca. However, this does not alter the main thrust of my point, which was that the comments made about the dominance of Latin only ever had any relevance at all in the west - there simply never was a time, despite the popularity of the myth, when all Scripture had to be in Latin. In other words, we agree but for some reason you have chosen to pick up on my words and reinterpret them in an anti-RC light. You have a tendency to do this. Perhaps you might try to read and comprehend my posts in future rather than skimming them and jumping to your own conclusions?

James

 

[athanasius]

What I said was not a myth. I never said that Luther did more than help get translations going in the west. He did, but that doesn't mean I said he was the first (actually there were a number of Bibles in western vernacular languages that pre-date his attempt, you are quite correct). However, the fact is that Latin did dominate in the west in a way which was not true of the east. There were periods when Latin was decidedly the only language promoted for religious matters and other languages were frowned upon. This simply did not happen in the east. Now, I would suggest that the issue that caused this peculiarity has less to do with the Roman church than it does with the political realities of the Frankish kings who dominated Europe and tried to ape the western Emperors, including in language, hence the term lingua franca. However, this does not alter the main thrust of my point, which was that the comments made about the dominance of Latin only ever had any relevance at all in the west - there simply never was a time, despite the popularity of the myth, when all Scripture had to be in Latin. In other words, we agree but for some reason you have chosen to pick up on my words and reinterpret them in an anti-RC light. You have a tendency to do this. Perhaps you might try to read and comprehend my posts in future rather than skimming them and jumping to your own conclusions?

James

Very sorry for the misunderstanding. You are correct. God bless you.

Athanasius