Talk:Protestantism

Archives

1. Talk:Protestantism/Archive 1

Prominent concerns remaining

Samuel J. Howard and all, please review your list above, as well as any other issues that should be cited, and let me know what prominent issues remain. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• #Overlap.2Finconsistency__with_Protestant_Reformation_article - this article brought up to the higher standard of the Reformation article, the purposes of the articles more clearly distinguished, and then material exchanged appropriately. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Authority

There are some gaps, it seems the question of Authority is an important area only glancingly touched on

1. ecclesiastical authority in the Church/churches is an area of difference between Protestantism, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic
   1. this also picks up some of the issues around laity, religious minister, holy orders and the priesthood of all believers

1. secular authority is an area of diversity in Protestantism
   1. Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms
   2. the reformed approach where Calvin and Zwingli are active in exercising secular authority
   3. the anabaptists
   4. the peace churches

Ideas of the Kingdom of God are relevant to both ecclesiastical and secular authority. Paul foord 04:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too Anglo-American

Need to pick up on/point to Protestantism in therest of the world Paul foord 04:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of sola scriptura

excerpted from the archive

I don't insist that it should be written in the article that 'Protestants are people of the Book' if for the reasons mentioned earlier you think it incorrect or confusing. But I think that in Sola Scriptura it should be noted that it means rejection of the Tradition. Also Tradition with capitalized 'T' means the Divine Tradition while tradition means various other traditions, which may be modified or abandoned in the light of Tradition, so it should be changed. BTW pls read also about priesthood in the "Dispute??" thread. --SylwiaS 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From a Protestant point of view, it's not quite accurate to say that sola scriptura means rejection of Tradition. Rather, it means that nothing is alongside of Scripture, in a place of equality in our "affections of our devotion and reverence" (as your source put it). Tradition is embraced, insofar as tradition is biblical - obviously, very different from an Orthodox or Catholic reverence for Holy Tradition. In some cases, this means that traditions are accepted, except those which conflict with Scripture (Lutherans, and especially, Anglicans, tend in this direction). In other cases, only those traditions are accepted for which there is direct warrant from Scripture (Reformed, and especially, Baptists traditionally tend in this direction ;-). Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Spirit of prophecy' and Pentecostal types of Protestant churches, and some restorationist movements and churches which originated in the United States, should usually NOT be said to subscribe to the principle of 'sola scriptura'. This broad category includes the Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also many who are nearer to the mainstream of evangelicalism, like Seventh-day Adventists, and many charismatic movements and churches. Or, perhaps it would be better to say, if they do consider themselves subscribers to the principle, that it is a kind of sola scriptura that is antithetical to the original. These groups can sometimes be extreme in their anti-Traditionalism; but their idea of the Spirit's living voice in the Church and in the life of the believer is comparable in some respects, to the Catholic one. At least, so far as the original idea of 'sola scriptura' is concerned, they are very comparable. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Priesthood of all believers

See the archives for discussion of the reasons that this article should not assert that the Roman Catholic Church denies the "priesthood of believers". Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I’m not sure if you read my message, where I proposed: “Protestants believe everyone is a priest while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the hierarchical priesthood” or “…while according to the Roman Catholic Church only the ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ builds up and leads his Church”. The original phrase in this article said that every one is a priest, not about priesthood of all believers, which for Catholics would mean two different things. Also, while I agree that User: Samuel J. Howard’s arguments were well cited, the quotation was incomplete. Therefore I wrote there more about Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

As to the Tradition, while I understand that various Protestant churches have different approach to the Bible and faith, I don’t think any of them would admit cultivating the Holy Tradition. Since Catholic popes and bishops are inseparable part of this Tradition and only they can interpret it, it would mean that there is a Protestant church, which recognizes our pope. --SylwiaS 21:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"As an intellectual movement..."

I'm removing a paragraph that seems a bit fluffy to me. It was intended to combine what I found here with a summary of Humanism to Protestantism. As such, looking at it more closely, later, I thought that it was out of place under "Definition", and should go into the history and development, where it could help with introducing an explanation of the founding of universities, supposed connections to capitalism, and the so-called "Protestant work-ethic", etc.. But, it isn't a good paragraph, all said and done. I'm inclined to remove it altogether. Does anyone want to see some version of it put back in?

As an intellectual movement, Protestantism grew out of the Renaissance and universities, attracting some learned intellectuals, as well as politicians, professionals, and skilled tradesmen and artisans. The new technology of the printing press allowed Protestant ideas to spread rapidly, as well as aiding in the dissemination of translations of the Bible in native tongues. Nascent Protestant social ideals of liberty of conscience and individual freedom were formed through continuous confrontation with the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and the hierarchy of the Catholic priesthood. The Protestant movement away from the constraints of tradition, toward greater emphasis on individual conscience, anticipated later developments of democratization, and the so-called Enlightenment of later centuries.

Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anglicans are Protestants

There are apparently a few Anglo-catholics about, who want to deny any real connection of the Anglicans with Protestantism. Anglicans belong in the list of Protestant denominations. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most definitely. The articles of faith of the Church of England are essentially Calvinist, aren't they? john k 17:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are, and officially binding. But, they are often ignored. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Book of Common Prayer essentially defines Anglicanism and Episcopalianism. This "Book" contains the "39 Articles of Faith" which are thoroughly Protestant. To claim Anglicans are not Protestant is mis-information if not vandalism. I vote to make this clear in the article. Jim Ellis 19:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of the stub-section on the English Reformation should accomplish this. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anglicans are Protestants, but a somewhat different breed, which emerged for political reasons rather than theological reasons, i.e., Lutheranism, Calvinism, the Anabaptists, etc. Many resources I've seen do indeed consider Anglicanism a school on par with Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. They became more Calvinistic (though were never hard-line Calvinists), but that was later. A Catholic could be Calvinist as well. At any rate, it's not important enough to argue about. KHM03 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yes, the Anglicans are Protestants, although King Henry VIII of England was mostly protesting for his right to take a new woman to bed whenever he wanted to. However, he did protest against the authority of the Roman Pope, enough to start his own church; and therefore, he represented a lot of Protestants who were protesting about a lot of other things, but who still wanted to remain part of the Anglican Church, and to remain loyal to their king. (Sept.)

By definition, it is not possible for a Catholic to be a Calvinist. You would be right that it's not important enough to argue about, as long as you are favoring the false view ;-) I don't think that "Calvinist" properly identifies the Thirty-nine articles, though. Usually, they are interpreted as Augustinian, rather than as though they implied the elaborate theological system of Calvinism. Mkmcconn (Talk)

• • • Don't forget that Calvin was originally a French Catholic (Jean Calvin), and was studying to become a Catholic monk, and was extremely knowledgeable about the past history of the Catholic Church, and the thinking of the "Church fathers", including those of antiquity, which he was able to quote at great length. This vast reservoir of knowledge enabled Calvin to have a unique perspective at the time, about the teachings of the Catholic Church, including how these teachings had changed over time. Realizing this, Calvin came to the shocking and dis-heartening conclusion that the Catholic Church had gotten off-track. You might even call him a "reactionary", because, like the Puritans later became, Calvin was quite conservative, and wanted to preserve the original teachings of Christ. (Sept.)

Until Anglicans reject the "39 Articles", they are "de facto" Protestants, in spite of modern movements toward communion with Rome. Specifically the Articles limit the sacraments to two, declare Justification by faith ALONE, and strongly speak out against placing tradition on a par with Scripture, the doctrine of purgatory, celebacy of the priesthood, etc, etc. Calvinism is not the issue. Although Augustus Toplady is turning over in his grave.  :-) Jim Ellis 21:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This whole talk thread greatly misunderstands Anglicanism. I find it particularly laughable that William Laud (one of the most strongly anti-protestant Anglicans ever to have been Archbishop of Canterbury) is included in the list of well known protestant figures. To look historically, Henry VIII only separately the English church from Rome on an organisational level, and did not introduce Protestantism (indeed, Henry had previously been awarded the title "Fides Defensor" by the Pope for his denunciation of Martin Luther) - it wasn't until the rule of Edward VII that it took a more Calvinist path. Calvinism continued under Elizabeth, but was pretty much reversed under the Stuarts: indeed, on one level, the English civil war can be viewed as a war between the catholic and protestant wings of the English church (which ultimately led to the Restoration and the emigration of many protestants, including the Pilgrim Fathers). Looking at the Church of England today, unoffically one of the two archbishoprics is always allocated to a "protestant", and the other to a "catholic" - this is hardly a sign that Anglo-Catholicism is a weak minority. In the General Synod, currently around a third of the members are Anglo-Catholic; a further third could be considered Protestant Anglicans, whilst the remainder are evangelicals. Also, to consider the Thirty-Nine Articles as being the be-all-and-end-all of Anglicanism is naive in the extreme: they are considered anachronistic / obsolete by all sections of the Church (Protestant, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical) - I doubt that even 10% of the Church of English accept them in their entirety. At best, the Church of England can be described as a "Broad Church" - it certainly cannot be described as being "Protestant" without ignoring both its historical development and its current makeup. --Thievinggypsy 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Solas

Looking over this article...is it really true that the five solas are basic to Protestantism? I'm a member of the third largest denomination in the United States, and the five solas are nowhere mentioned in our doctrinal standards. It seems to me that the solas are indicative of Calvinist Protestantism, and maybe Lutheran...but are not as important for, say, Methodists or other Arminians, or Anglicans, or Liberals. Respectfully, my opinion is that the "Basic tenets" section needs a rewrite. KHM03 17:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's say, the Protestantism of the Reformation. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fair (though not necessarily true of the English Reformation), but the article is Protestantism, not the Reformation. While the Reformation is certainly crucial in understanding Protestantism, Protestantism is also much, much more than the Reformation...it has grown considerably in many, many ways. I just feel we need to address the "Basic tenets" from a wider perspective than simply Reformation Protestantism. KHM03 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not necessarily true of the English Reformation". Would you expand on it here? Protestantism has obviously developed beyond the Reformation. In fact, so far beyond that it might be fair to say that there is nothing "basic" left, by which Protestantism may be described: other than "not Roman Catholic" (if that!). There is a lot to be said, that isn't said here; but if we left out or glossed over the theological tenets of the Protestant Reformation, we would be guilty of a rather absurd distortion, in an article called "Protestantism". Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Five Solas weren't as much an issue in the English Reformation as political considerations. So, the Solas were important for the continental reformers moreso than for the English. Yes, it's ceratinly fair to mention the historic understandings which led to the development of Protestantism. But the five solas today aren't really in any way representative of Protesantism as a whole. I'm just saying that we need to make that clear, lest we give an invalid view of what Protestantism really is in 2005 (and "western non-Catholic" might be the best we can do!). KHM03 28 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

The structure of the article provides for a fuller account of significant shifts, up to the present day. The fact is that, Protestantism began at a certain time, standing for certain things, theologically. The Solas do fairly represent what those theological issues were, as can be shown overwhelmingly from the mountains of literature that were generated at the time. However, modern Protestantism does not even in general terms stand for these things, just as you say. Modernism has swept away "sola scriptura". Humanism has undercut "sola gratia". Universalism has eliminated "sola fide" and "solus christus". Pluralism has assured that "solus christus" and "soli deo gloria" are identified with certain scary sects of fundamentalism, in the Protestant popular mind. ( ... and other complex influences, of course) Mkmcconn (Talk) \

It is an important part of the story, to tell how most descendants of Protestantism now stand in various degrees of self-conscious opposition to everything that their forebears died (and killed) to establish. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

I agree that we need to mention these things...they are historically important to the nth degree. No question. But, for good or ill, Protestantism isn't really represented by the five solas in 2005. Yes, they have been "undercut" by many historic movements. Whether that's good or bad is for a forum other than Wikipedia, of course. As an evcangelical, I personally don't have a big problem with the five solas (at least with the idea of the five solas), but would probably disagree with how many Christians have defined them or lived them out through the years. As a United Methodist, I think you can find the "meat" of the solas in UM doctrinal standards (though in Anglican-via-Wesley language). I'm just looking for greater accuracy on the page, even if being accurate is a sad thing. It would be wonderful if someday we could lift up this page as a model for wikipedians. I personally will probably not make any edits regarding this issue; I'll leave that decision up to you and others. You seem more passionate about it...and passion's a good thing. Very Methodist! KHM03 28 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)

:-p

I agree. Let's be complete. For that reason, continue to try to work in the issues that you think are lacking, please. I for one want to see what they might add to rounding out the account of what Protestantism is. Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 00:26 (UTC)

History, Figures, etc.

I have a thought. What if we restructured the article a bit? Here's a potential (messy, vague) outline...

I. Basic intro - a paragraph or 2...what is Protestantism? mention Reformation roots, certainly Luther and probably Calvin, contemporary diversity

II. Precursors

III. 16th century - REFORMATION - - Luther, Calvin, England, et al - - keeping it basic

IV. 17th century - AGE of ORTHODOXY

V. 18th century - AGE of RATIONALISM (orthodoxy minus God) / AGE of PIETISM (Wesley & Methodists, etc.)

VI. 19th century - AGE of ROMANTICISM (pietism minus God), birth of Liberal Christianity, dispensationalism, etc.

VII. 20th century - Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, Neo-orthodoxy, modern missions movement, modern ecumenical movement, increasing diversity, mainline domination and decline

VIII. 21st century - Methodists take over the world...maybe this one is a bit NPOV

At any rate, under each point we could list important figures of the period. It might neaten things up a bit and, if we were careful not to let any one section get too long, it could really be a good article (I do think that the Reformation section & Luther especially should be a bit longer than the other sections).

Just a thought. On to perfection - -KHM03 29 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)

It's not a totally bad suggestion; the issue it raises is that, it turns toward a chronicle of Protestantism, away from a kind of broad intellectual survey of what Protestantism is (which has a history). Perhaps the latter is too hard to do in one article, though, and History of Protestantism ought to exist? Mkmcconn (Talk) 29 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

Or, since defining Protestantism seems so difficult, maybe the definition is its history. KHM03 29 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)

Not far from my personal opinion, KHM03. It's not so much that it's difficult to offer definitions of Protestantism, but rather, the challenge is to register that definition as normative. How can it be done? in terms of its origins (which most either disown or inventively re-write)? its basic tenets (which most have come to contradict)? or its subsequent history (by which its most distinguishing feature has become, the lack of distinguishing features)? It's tricky. Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)

The comment on how many denominations there are is misleading, that figure is not about protestants in particular. I added another line to clarify.

WHAT HAPPENS AT COMMUNION?

It seems to me that this is a basic part of Protestantism. I believe that what actually happens is not readily apparent. Jesus said at the Last Supper, "This cup represents the New Testament in my blood" (see Matthew). In other words, the cup was partly symbolic ("represents"). However, by drinking from the cup, the disciples were taking part in a sacred covenant with Jesus, before God. Therefore, the consequences of drinking from this cup were and are very real, and quite serious. The fact that God is watching, is what makes the Communion so serious. Whom are they communing with? With God. And God decides whether to honor their covenant with Him or not. This happens in Heaven, by God's supreme, divine authority, not necessarily whether the disciples understood it or not. Although human understanding is important, God's Holy Spirit is "able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the (human) heart." God Himself was certainly not confused about what it meant. The New Covenant (mentioned in the book of Jeremiah), which is represented and entered into by drinking from the Communion cup, is described in the New Testament (a "testament" contains the written terms and conditions of an oral covenant). So, to say that the New Testament is "unconditional", is a contradiction in terms. The New Testament actually is ABOUT the conditions of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, including how to live out, this New Covenant. (Sept.)

I refer to you Eucharist, Eucharistic theology, Real Presence, and Eucharistic theologies contrasted. KHM03 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Most translations of the Bible give "This cup is the New Testament..." for the passage above. Whether he meant it representationally is open for dispute. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Protestants Were Catholics

• • • Because most of the protestants were Catholics, the movement more accurately might have been called the "Protestant Catholic Reformation" of the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, a lot of people have lost the connection between where the Protestant movement originated, and where it ended up. These English, German and Swiss Protestants were not some strange breed that just happened out of nowhere; they knew what they were talking about. The Protestants were familiar with Catholic doctrine because they were Catholics! Also, many (or most) of the Protestant leaders came out of the educated Catholic leadership, and therefore, once again, they knew what they were talking about, and were probably better acquainted with Catholic doctrines than most of their Catholic opposition. At the time, illiteracy and ignorance were rampant, and superstition ruled the day. When many English, Scottish and French Protestants were being burned at the stake as heretics by the Catholic clergy, many for simply possessing a Bible in their own language (instead of Latin), the Catholic clergy thought that the books were accursed. Incidentally, the Catholic Church pronounced over one hundred anathema (curses) against the Protestants, during the Reformation, which have never been removed or renounced by the Catholic Church.

However, the Catholic Church approves of Islam today (although they fought as mortal enemies in the past), and calls Islam "just another path to Heaven". (Sept.)

And Jesus was Jewish...yet he had fundamental differences to them, as do Protestants in contrast with Catholics, the name describes the belief. One might as well call them Jewish Catholic Protestants. - HT

English Puritanism Has its Roots in the Scottish Covenanters Movement, as Well as German Lutheranism and French/Swiss Calvinism

A revival first broke out in Scotland, contemporaneously with Calvinism in France and Switzerland. Unfortunately, the English Puritans, under Oliver Cromwell, crushed the Scottish Covenanters, when they tried to put a Catholic King of Scotland onto the English throne. Cromwell and his Puritans defeated the numerically-superior but misguided Scottish army, and proceeded to conquer and subdue all of Scotland. The real "braveheart" was Oliver Cromwell! (Sept.) -- unsigned comment by anonymous User:129.24.93.219

Are you suggesting an addition or change to the article, or just trying to start a discussion? Also, the normal way to sign your posts on wikipedia is to use three or four tilde's. That way no one will confuse your nickname with the name of a month. (This is a current pet peeve of mine.) Wesley 20:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This refers more to Protestant Reformation or English Reformation rather than Protestantism, There is also an article on te Covenanters. -- Paul foord 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why has nobody mentioned this?

In Protestantism, Jesus is the highest in ranking under the Father. But in Catholicism, Jesus's worldly mother, Mary, is at higher ranking than Jesus (which, IMO as a Protestant, is wrong). That's the most important difference! How do you guys miss that? Protestantism never believed that "Virgin Mary" is worthy of the title of "The Mother of God". This is very offensive to Protestants, please include it. --Hayson

In the future, please sign your notes. As to your comments concerning "Mother of God": no one has mentioned this because theotokos is perfectly acceptable within the entire Christian tradition, and has been since the early centuries of the church (i.e., it is in no way an innovation, as can be argued for purgatory or other such disputed teachings); Θεοτόκος is a descriptive title, and not a reference to rank. See, for instance, the recent Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, which has a concise discussion of the Nestorian controversy, which was sparked by an objection to the use of Θεοτόκος. Ask around before speaking for all protestants, please. -Rekleov 18:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many Catholics who venerate Mary above Jesus. And, as a Protestant, I can strongly affirm that Mary is indeed the Mother of God. KHM03 22:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing my notes. KHM03 should have known that God consists of three parts: Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Mary is only the physical mother of Son, not all of God. I was a Catholic myself, and then converted to Protestant. A Catholic will pray many times a day to "Mother of God" instead of God(who created "Mother of God"), that's what I meant by higher ranking, sorry if I confused you. I'm sorry that I didn't know about theotokos. I'll try and research more before I speak for all protestants, but most protestants don't believe in the dispute traditional teachings. (Isn't that why Martin Luther made the revolution in the first place?) --Hayson 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the importance of Mary is plain to see. According to the 10 commandments: "honor thy father and mother." Nobody debates that Mary was Jesus' mother so therefore Jesus must honor Mary (This does not mean he is subordinate, however). If by praying to Mary we "get her on our side" how much more influence will she have with God than we with our prayers alone? 216.99.65.10 14:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To back this up, as a Protestant I would certainly agree that Mary is "Mother of God". Jesus is God, Mary is his mother. What more do we need? Incidentally it is a subtle theological error (in Protestantism as well as Catholicism) to consider that Jesus is only part of God. Talk to your minister for more on that. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. At the time of the third council, it was decided to call Mary "Theotokos" ("mother of God") mainly to emphasize that her son, Jesus, was fully God, and not only human. Orthodox believers are encouraged to pray to Mary in addition to praying to God, rather than instead of praying to God. You can read this in the published liturgies. I strongly suspect that Roman Catholics have the same practice, and I know that both believe that prayer to Mary is only effective because she entreats God to answer the prayer, not because she has any power of her own apart from God to answer prayer. You may well find some Catholic and Orthodox believers who are confused about this, but you can also find Protestants who are confused about various things as well. May God have mercy on us all. Peace, Wesley 17:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I found Hayson's comments very...funny. And revealing. Wesley and Clayworth have explained it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2nd Piston Honda (talk • contribs)

Just a quick note, I'm surprised at the usage of the words 'to Mary' instead of 'with Mary' with regard to prayers. In much of Catholic theology one must note that Catholics pray with Mary to God. This is done in the asking for her intercession. The Rosary, Novenas, the Vigils are all our human attempts at asking Mary to intercede for us, hence she asks God WITH us, or FOR us. She does not act as the recepient of our prayers, rather the intercessor. If it seems out of place, please go ahead and delete my post!Anthony Permal 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I changed it from "a split from within" to "a splitting away from" because the former makes it sound like two large opposing factions were debating within the Church. The new phrase better reflects both the size of the group and the nature of the revolt. -- 2nd Piston Honda 05:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Are Anglicans Prostestant?

The article lists Anglicans/ Episcopalans as among the Prostestant groups. While I understand this, I do not agree. I myself am an Anglican and do not consider myself Protestant. However, I know other Anglicans who do. I also must admit that I generally refer to myself as "Anglo-Catholic." Because of my bias, I shall not edit the article, but ask that others review the website of the Episcopal Diocese of New York which has a question/answer forum where the following exchange occurred:

Wednesday March 19, 2003 Question: this is a long going debate amongst my family. Is the Episcopal Church Catholic or Protestant

Answer: This question generates debate because many people make the mistake of thinking that “if you are not Roman Catholic, then you must be Protestant.” Significantly, the Episcopal Church is Anglican, and it dropped the word ‘Protestant’ from the title page of The Book of Common Prayer over 20 years ago - it confuses our identity.

The most balanced and respected theological view is that there are three major ‘Catholic’ churches - a) Roman Catholic, b) Orthodox, and c) Anglican (Episcopal). This view is based on the fact that the English Reformation was affected by the (continental) Protestant Reformation in significant but not substantial ways. While our English forebears distinguished their church from the Bishop of Rome, they still retained the essential components of the Catholic Church. We are not Protestant because of several elements in our polity, spirituality and theology which are fundamental to our common life. These include the three-fold ministry of Holy Orders, the retention of a sacramental life that emphasizes Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, the focus on the life of sanctification, the embrace of the Religious Life, the centrality of the historic episcopate, and several other distinguishing aspects of Catholicity. It would be incorrect to say that we are not Catholic because we are not Roman Catholic. And it would be incorrect to say that we are Protestant.

Therefore, the most accurate answer to your question is - we are Anglican. We are a Catholic Church, sympathetic to and impacted by the Protestant style, but characterized by a life that flows distinctively from the English Rite instead of the Roman Rite.

A direct link to this is [Episcopal Church Q & A]

--Franklin Moore 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why you don't just edit the page. I did some book research and everything I read makes the same distinctions. We could say "often listed as Protestant but considers itself a branch of Catholicism distinct from the Roman and Orthodox branches" or somesuch.--Cberlet 15:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in detail on the Anglicanism page that links from the list. Is my re-arranged sub-subheading a solution?--Cberlet 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The new subheading seems to address my concerns quite well. Thanks Franklin Moore 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a map?

There is one for the distribution of Catholicism in the world. De mortuis... 02:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias

How can James Dobson, for example, be considered even near the same level as theologians with worldwide impact? Though I agree with Billy Graham, for example, his son Franklin has hardly made a similar level of contribution. And, as Tom Lehrer would say, it lacks the great philosophers, like Norman Vincent Peale. Could we look to cull this list down to globally or regionally significant reformers? I mean, really... Martin Luther in the same list as Ian Paisley, someone many consider hardly sane, let alone a theologian. I'll leave it to the others maintaining this page to justify the inclusion of so many bush league political, quasi-religious zealots in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. BR --Haiku

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The major differences between Protestantism and Catholicism.

It would be nice with a new header that shows the major differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. Like the role of following Jesus messengers etc. And differences in modern days, and in the society´s. -like politics etc. --Comanche cph 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence

I contend against 2nd Piston Honda that this sentance from the intro:

Protestantism is a main branch of Christianity.

is better than this version:

Protestantism is one of three main groups currently within Christianity.

I claim this because the second could be interpreted as POV because of the word "currently" (as though one group may shortly or sometime in the future leave the bounds of Christendom). If the specification of three branches is what 2nd Piston Honda is concerned with, then I'd suggest:

Protestantism is one of the three main branches in Christianity.

--Flex 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism and the First World

I take issue with the phrase "Protestantism is currently the dominant religion of many first-world countries such as the United States and Germany," particularly with its place in the introduction. First, Germany is evenly split along Protestant and Catholic lines, so the assertion that the former is the "dominant" religion is hard to swallow. Also, the obvious implication here is that a correlation exists between Protestantism and social and economic prosperity. I'm sure this has a certain appeal with many people, but on the other hand it isn't difficult to find first world countries that are primarily Catholic (Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc.), so I hardly see what good the assertion does, out of place, without context, at the beginning of the article. Albrecht 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Mormons"

Under the "famous people" Joseph Smith, Jr. is listed, and it's claimed that Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) claim to be Protestant. (with a "citation needed" mark.)

However,

"Question: Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Protestant church? 

Answer: Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said: "We are not an institution which has broken away from the Roman Catholic or any other church. We are not part of a reformation. We declare that this is a Restoration. The teachings and organization of the Church are as they were anciently." http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-57-16,00.html

Most Mormons would NOT agree that they are part of any Protestant religion. I haven't edited the page but would appreciate someone else looking at this.

Autobahnsho 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Will D.

Protestant views on masturbation

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Protestantism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for change to the category "Christian denominations"

There is a debate over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church regarding whether the Catholic Church should be in the category "Christian denominations".

I have made a proposal over at Talk:Christianity which, in essence, proposes replacing [[Category:Christian denominations]] with [[Category:Major branches of Christianity]] and [[Category:Protestand denominations]]. Hopefully, this will address the issue.

I believe this proposal should be debate at Talk:Christianity so I have placed the proposal on that page. Please place your comments in the section titled Proposal for change to the category "Christian denominations"

--Richard 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)