If I recall correctly from A-level history there were protestents in England at that time but they were small in number and not too organised or influential
They lived mostly in the South East, Yorkshire for instance was very catholic
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What has happened to Protestantism?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
They lived mostly in the South East, Yorkshire for instance was very catholic
Err, you realise it has a large global presence, yes? If not the largest of the Protestant groups?
Other Proestant denominations will often use a standard order of service for their worship services. It's just that individual congregations aren't under the control of a bishop or general council who has the authority to dictate that a congregation must use one specific order of service.
If you're still hung up on the sacraments, why on Earth did you become a Protestant?
And as for the point of church attendance... Protestants often point to Mattew 18:20 ("For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them").
As a matter of fact, no, I did not know that.
But ultimately, that is unimportant, unremarkable even. Protestantism is divided among so many different denominations (and keeps splitting further) that it is a major challenge to even count them. There are no clear best criteria, and there is not a lot of benefit in pursuing those criteria.
In practice, the various denominations and branches are significant mostly at the political level, and in proportions that have more to do with their visibility than their numbers.
Here in Brazil, at least, traditional Protestant churches are very much present... but they are definitely less influential than the most flamboyant Neo-charismatic churches such as the Assemblies of God and UCKG. Both traditional and Neo-charismatic Protestantism are divided in myriad denominations, and there just isn't much growth in the most traditional ones. Nor are Brazilians - Christian or otherwise - all that aware of what the divisions and differences even are. For instance, there are plenty of Presbiterian and Baptist Churches - and they are all over the place far as their expectations go. Some are very strict, some very liberal. Some very flamboyant and backwards, some very discreet and sober. It is all determined on a case-by-case basis.
Christians here tend to care about who their local preachers and what they have to say, more than about actual doctrine. To an extent that is true even of the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm curious about what you've said. What is the significance of singing?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Well, they DID break from Rome and the Pope.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
Protestant churches do have "authorities" in most cases. Methodist have Bishops, though I don't know a great deal about the role.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
The Book of Psalms is all poetry to be sung/chanted. "Make a joyful noise" is very traditional for worship, though IMO Psalms and many Protestant hymns are rather depressing.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Because the major Protestant groups all agree with me; the C of E, the Lutherans, Calvinists et al. They all have the Eucharist and sacraments at the centre.
It's as if people don't know this. They do not know their own Reformers. Luther even has consubstantiation (or something very like it, as far as we can tell). Calvin has the extra-Calvinisticum, that is the real presence of Christ at the Eucharist.
This should be common Protestant knowledge.
This is why I'm asking what's happened to Protestantism.
The C of E clearly cares about sacraments. Why is this Church always discarded as if not part of the Reformation?
In Lutheranism, the Eucharist (also called the Mass, the Sacrament of the Altar, the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Table, Holy Communion, the Breaking of the Bread, and the Blessed Sacrament[1][2]) refers to the liturgical commemoration of the Last Supper. Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, affirming the doctrine of sacramental union, "in which the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially (vere et substantialiter) present, offered, and received with the bread and wine."
Eucharist in Lutheranism - Wikipedia
Calvin defined a sacrament as an earthly sign associated with a promise from God. He accepted only two sacraments as valid under the new covenant: baptism and the Lord's Supper (in opposition to the Catholic acceptance of seven sacraments). [...] Rather than holding a purely symbolic view, Calvin noted that with the participation of the Holy Spirit, faith was nourished and strengthened by the sacrament.
Calvin believed in a real spiritual presence of Christ at the Eucharist.[31] For Calvin, union with Christ was at the heart of the Lord's Supper.[3
Theology of John Calvin - Wikipedia
Extra calvinisticum - Wikipedia
Last edited:
As a youth I had to sit in an awful, awful Psalms class. In it we took turns reading a verse or two of a psalm in English. It was a class in name only. The teacher would always say inane things like "This is a psalm of praise and thanksgiving," never anything insightful. It was as if the goal was to make every psalm seem like every other psalm. The different ones ran into each other like a cobbler. I tried hard to make something out of the class, but it was pointless. Nothing was said which clarified anything about the culture. We didn't know enough to make sense of what we were reading.
What I did benefit from was speaking Psalm 1 in a group in morning chapel. We did this once a week for several weeks, and it made memorizing the psalm automatic. Just saying it all as a group locked it in for me. We didn't do it for any other Psalms or scriptures, however, which was disappointing. It worked so well.
Hard to tell for certain.
That is certainly how I learned. But there is a line of thought that I happen to like that suggests that meaningful events tend to be somewhat unavoidable.
There were many Monarchs before and after Henry VIII. For all we know, any other of those might have decided that the RCC was too constraining and taken a similar decision at some point.
Perhaps more significantly, we should note that centuries after that incident the Church of England still exists, while so much else that was once relevant to that time and/or to England does not.
I think that there are real, significant reasons why Anglicanism has not pursued (or been offered) full communion with the RCC. Many formely Orthodox Churches have that full communion now, but not the CoE. I assume that the main reason is because there isn't a significant benefit for the cost. Neither the RCC nor England (or the UK) have a pressing need for that agreement, and it would be awkward to attempt to establish formal precedence between the Monarchy of the Vatican and the Monarchy of the United Kingdom.
Of course, the significances of both the Monarchies and the Churches have not been unchanging either.
Quite possibly.
But once that step was taken, there was no compelling reason to leave the door open for returning some measure of authority over the British Monarchy to the Vatican.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
#23 and 100 were the two I learned to recite as a child. There're a few others I have happened acrossed and liked pretty good, but all in all, I have never been a great fan of Psalms.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
The eldest daughter sure gave it a try! She earned her nickname "Bloody Mary."
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Why did you skip the second-largest Protestant group? The Baptists are are nearly as large as the Anglicans.
Personally, I see Lutheranism as the archaeopteryx of Protestantism: a stepping stone on the way to what we think of as "modern" birds/Protestantism, just with a few holdover features (teeth/not-quite-transubstantiation).
And Calvinism considers the bread and wine to be symbolic, so I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on them.
Yes, that is relevant.
I should have said instead that once the CoE was established, attempts to restore Catholicism would be tricky at best.
Not least because it would raise questions about the legitimacy of specific monarchs. To say that those questions played a role in Mary's behavior would be very proper indeed.
The BC doesn't have as big a presence in the UK from my experience but you are right. Baptism is, however, a sacrament.
This is not strictly true either.
His own view was close to Zwingli's symbolic view, but it was not identical. Rather than holding a purely symbolic view, Calvin noted that with the participation of the Holy Spirit, faith was nourished and strengthened by the sacrament.
Theology of John Calvin - Wikipedia
Calvin even defined a sacrament, as I said before:
Calvin begins with God’s promise and our own weak faith along side our devotion and witness before the powers of heaven and earth. His definition of a sacrament is, “an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men.”(1)2 Calvin refers to the ancient writers who translate the Greek word “mystery” as sacramentum; he also refers to the Biblical texts: Eph 1:9; 3:2; Col 1:26; 1 Tim 3:16. (2).
Turning to the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives, Calvin explains how it is that we are willing to receive both Word and sacrament, be taught by them, and are transformed by them. We are taught the Word, confirmed by the sacraments and in all of this enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Thus our transformation, including our spiritual walk, is through the Holy Spirit whose guidance and authority are always connected to the Word and graciously associated with the sacrament. (8)
I say that Christ is the matter, or, if you rather choose it, the substance of all the sacraments, since in him they have their whole solidity, and out of him promise nothing….
You are trying to make out as though Luther were just a forerunner who didn't start his own church or have his own theology.
It is very clear that, even today, the main branches of Protestantism in Europe are Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism. All of these place strong import upon the Eucharist, sacraments, and liturgy.
How are we to define Protestantism if we can't even use the Reformers' own theologies? It is nonsensical.
Your view seems to take the Radical Reformation as a norm, which perhaps makes sense in the New World, but not in Europe at all.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The way it has been explained to me, is that when referring to the Catholic Church in Rome, you capitalize the C. When you merely mean catholic as in universal, you use a small case c. So the way I would say it is that while Henry VIII did not remain Catholic, he remained catholic.