Were Puritans Catholics or Protestants?

[KarlGrenze]

Months ago, in my English class we were discussing Puritan literature. We were discussing customs, traditions, way of thinking, etc. I do not remember most of it, but I remember part of a chat a classmate and I had. It was something about the Puritan religion. I said they were Protestant, and she promptly replied that no, Puritans were Catholics.

I considered them Protestants because:

They didn't recognize the authority of the Pope.
Their religion service was different from the structure of the Catholic Mass.
I do not remember they believed in saints, nor in marian devotions.
They did not had the same sacraments.

She considered them Catholics because:

They were originally from England, and in England the official church was the Anglican Church.
The Anglican Church separated from the RCC.
The Puritans where an offshot of the Anglican Church.

I know...this is a probably a world changing question. But, please, can you answer it?

[racinchikki]

The Anglican church SEPARATED FROM the Roman Catholic Church. That's the key point of HER argument that actually supports YOURS. Separated from means NOT a part of any more. The Puritans were Protestants.

[Opus1]

They were Protestants. It is true that the Anglican church was the official church of England, but it was Protestant too! Saying that "X is Y" because "X is an offshoot of Y" makes about as much sense as saying that Christians are Jews, because Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, or Americans are European, because the colonies were originally English.

[Guinastasia]

They most certainly were NOT CAtholic, but they weren't what you'd call your standard Protestants, either. Although anything not Catholic, Orthodox or Antioch is generally considered Protestant, I believe.

Anyhoo, I THINK they were Calvinists, but I'm not sure.

[KarlGrenze]

Racinchikki, thanks, that was the thing I was going to tell her, but class demanded our attention and I wasn't really in the mood of talking religion with her.

Guinastasia... Calvinists where the ones who believed in predestination, right? I think the Puritans had predestination of part of their beliefs, but I may be wrong.

[Johanna]

English Protestants in the 17th century who didn't belong to the Anglican Church were called Dissenters or Nonconformists. There were a lot of them proliferating in those days. The Puritans are the most famous because they actually held political power in two situations. But there were also the Quakers, the Diggers, the Ranters, and Lord knows what all else.

From the look of this message board, the Ranters never died out!

[Diceman]

They say that Richard Nixon was a Quaker.

[astorian]

The Puritans were NOT Catholics! Indeed, they hated the Catholic CHurch more than anything else on Earth! They were radical Protestants who thought that the English Reformation (led by Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer) hadn't gone nearly far enough. The Church of England rejected the leadership of the Pope, but it DIDN'T reject the basic theology of the Roman Catholic Church. That's why, even today, a Catholic can feel very much at home in many "high" Anglican churches.

The Puritans, who were strongly influenced by John Calvin, HATED what they saw as lingering Catholicism in the Church of England. The very name "Puritan" came from their belief that the Anglican Church was still too Catholic, and needed to be "purified" of its remaining Catholic elements.

Their desire to remain Anglicans, while "purifying" the Church of England of all traces of Catholicism, was what distinguished the Puritans from the Pilgrims, who were "Separatists." The Separatist Pilgrims thought the Anglican Church was hopelessly tainted by Catholicism, and wnted to break completely away from it.

[Slithy Tove]

Originally posted by KarlGrenze
she promptly replied that no, Puritans were Catholics.

Don't you love it when you encounter insistant ignoramuses like this? It always reminds me of the scene from "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" where the teacher hears a few notes from "The Magic Flute" and says with authority "Rachmaninoff!"

[Azazel]

The Puritan Church is still around today; they call themselves Congregationalists.

They seem to me indistinguishable from Methodists and/or Presbyterians

[JRDelirious]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
They most certainly were NOT CAtholic, but they weren't what you'd call your standard Protestants, either. Although anything not Catholic, Orthodox or Antioch is generally considered Protestant, I believe.

Anyhoo, I THINK they were Calvinists, but I'm not sure.

Today, for the 10-second soundbite we'd obviate any details and lump them in with "fundamentalists".

"Protestant" is commonly used to refer to any recognizably Christian church that spun off after the 16th-century Reformation. Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists and their first-and second- generation iterations like Methodists, Puritans, Baptists, CoC-Disciples, CMA's, Pentecostals...etc. Some very-very-hardline fundies like the much-beloved Jack Chick claim to not be protestants but to represent a "real Christianity" that had always been "underground" all along. And some groups like the JW's and LDS are so divergent from historic Christian doctrine that it pains many "Protestants" to have them lumped in.


jrd

[KarlGrenze]

Originally quoted by ME, KG
I know...this is a probably a world changing question. But, please, can you answer it?

I wondered why no one noticed this error. It must read:

I know...this is probably NOT a world changing question.

Don't you love it when you encounter insistant ignoramuses like this?

Not really, not when the comments come out of the mouth of one of my best friends. Basically, for her the Orthodox, RCC, and Anglican/Episcopalian churches are Catholic because they follow a strict lithurgy, the way they organize Mass, their sacraments, etc.

Azazel, I think Presbyterians, contrary to Methodists or Puritans, practice infant bapstism. While I'm not sure about Methodists or Puritans, here at least the sacrament of baptism in the Presbyterian chuch is given to the kids.

[Pjen]

Technically, the CofE initially didn't claimed directly to be Protestant in the way that Luther did. The CofE liturgy still claims it is part of the ?universal and catholic church.

Good old Henry VIII didn't claim to be creating a new church, merely continuing the catholic church because the Pope was leading the church away from the true light(i.e. what he wanted).

Of course, later it became indistinguishable from other Protestant churches in most ways.

There is still a recognized Anglo-Catholic wing of the CofE.

[Azazel]

Originally posted by KarlGrenze
Azazel, I think Presbyterians, contrary to Methodists or Puritans, practice infant bapstism. While I'm not sure about Methodists or Puritans, here at least the sacrament of baptism in the Presbyterian chuch is given to the kids. [/b]

Hmmm..... I have seen Presbyterian infant baptisms, and, although I have not personally witnessed any, I believe that Methodists practice them also. I'm not sure about Puritans/Congregationalists (who actually now call themselves UCC -for United Church of Christ).

[/hijack]

[wevets]

Originally posted by Diceman
They say that Richard Nixon was a Quaker.

I know he went to Whittier, which is a Quaker school, but was he actually a Quaker?

[SpoilerVirgin]

Yes, Nixon was a Quaker. In this book review which discusses his religious background, he is quoted as saying that "The impact of my Quaker heritage on my personality has been underestimated." His parents were strict fundamentalists Quakers, but Nixon's own religious views became more liberal when he grew up.

[BobT]

Back to the OP, didn't anybody ever read a book about the English Civil War? Didn't they find out what the issues were?

Oliver Cromwell is spinning in his grave.

[racinchikki]

Originally posted by Azazel

Hmmm..... I have seen Presbyterian infant baptisms, and, although I have not personally witnessed any, I believe that Methodists practice them also. I'm not sure about Puritans/Congregationalists (who actually now call themselves UCC -for United Church of Christ).

[/hijack] [/b]

::raising hand:: I'm a nonpracticing Methodist. I was baptized as a wee baby. Yes, they practice them. Also, an adult who was not baptized as a baby can opt to be baptized in a special ceremony in order to join the church, but that's rare.

[johnson]

If I recall correctly from religion classes a decade ago, it is a rather odd fact that the Unitarian-Universalists evolved from New England Puritanism, through the Congregationalists, which I would say are also now one of the more liberal denominations.

And at our Methodist church, virtually all baptisms are infant baptisms. Hence Confirmation, at which the youngster confirms the promises that were made in his name at baptism.

[KarlGrenze]

Bob, nope we didn't read about the English Civil War. Basically, all I know is that for some years, instead of a monarchy, Great Britain had something called Commonwealth. The class was about US Literature, not about History of Great Britain.

[Muffin]

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...1561#41561.toc

[BobT]

Originally posted by KarlGrenze
Bob, nope we didn't read about the English Civil War. Basically, all I know is that for some years, instead of a monarchy, Great Britain had something called Commonwealth. The class was about US Literature, not about History of Great Britain.

You may not study the English Civl War in a U.S. Literature class, but it had an enormous effect on the development of the United States, and in turn, its literature.

[ruadh]

Oh come on, Bob. There are dozens of historical events that can be said to have had a huge influence on American literature (many of them with far less tenuous connections to it than the English Civil War had). Is someone taking a US Literature class expected to study all of them?

[BobT]

Maybe I'm just projecting on to others a bad experience when I was in a school that involved the English Civil War.

But let me tell you Sonny, back in my day (the mid-1980s) we studied the English Civil War in school and we liked it.

[KarlGrenze]

Thanks Muffin for the link. Bob, I wish there were more history and literature courses in my high school. Unfortunately, they aren't, and probably won't exist for some years. We were given a brief explanation of the Puritan thinking. With the explanation, I thought it was clear that Puritans were not Catholics. Apparently my friend thought the opposite. If we ever get stuck in that argument again(very doubtful), I will point out to her what I believed then, and people here cleared up.

[DSYoungEsq]

Given that the English Civil War is in many ways directly responsible for the American Revolutionary War, ignorance of its causes and its effects is ignorance of our own past.

Not that I'm tempted to lump the two together with the American Civil War and call them all wars caused by religion as a certain American Historian has attempted...

[KarlGrenze]

DSY, slight hijack of my own post:

US history is not my history. We take US history and US literature.

End of hijack.

[sjc]

Originally posted by Opus1
They were Protestants. It is true that the Anglican church was the official church of England, but it was Protestant too! Saying that "X is Y" because "X is an offshoot of Y" makes about as much sense as saying that Christians are Jews, because Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, or Americans are European, because the colonies were originally English.

I don't know if anyone has addressed this because I haven't read all the way through the post (Sorry! I just had to get this out before I forgot to write it), but I 'm not so sure it is stupid to say that "X is Y" because X is an offshoot of Y". I do agree that the Puritans were not Catholic and Christians are not Jews and Americans are not European, but at the same time they did come from those places (if you can follow what I'm saying.) In a sense Christians are just a sect of Judaism and many Americans definitely are Europeans (i.e. of European descent [except for those that aren't]). It might be fair to say that Puitans are Catholics, but in that case all protestants are Catholic as well.

The problem with saying that Puritans were Catholic (or, in a similar way, any of the other things mentioned) is that both Catholics and Protestants define themselves as separate groups. This really all that nedds to be done in order to consider them separate groups. If I say I am a Weeblewoxer because I have brown hair and you are a Bloogsnorter because you have blonde hair, then I am a Weeblewoxer and you are a Bloogsnorter, simple as that. On the other hand, if someone else says that we are both Moobswizzlers because we both have hair, then we are Moobswizzlers. It is all about the labels we put on people.

Protestants say they are not Catholics because they don't obey the pope and lots of other things and Catholics say likewise in reverse. Puritans didn't obey the pope and believed many other things that would make them protestants in their eyes and in the eyes of Catholics. So I guess you can't call Puritans Catholic.

[BobT]

Originally posted by KarlGrenze
DSY, slight hijack of my own post:

US history is not my history. We take US history and US literature.

End of hijack.

In that case, my apologies for not grasping your point of view on the whole matter. I was guilty of thinking that you were living in my own deluded Personal Center of the Universe, aka the United States.

[Kaje]

Saying "X is not Y because X is an offshoot of Y" is different from saying "X is not Y because X specifically said we hate Y and want to no longer be Y"

[APB]

No, of course, 'Puritans' were not Roman Catholics. (Having said that some people in the seventeenth century did believe that the more radical Protestant sects were just a front for the Jesuits, but they weren't and clearly this was not what the teacher in the OP was referring to.)

There is however one crucial point of which only astorian seems to be aware - the 'Puritans' were never a specific sect. Originally they were simply the more radical wing of the Church of England. Their theology was indeed heavily influenced by Calvinism, although the same was also true of many of the more mainstream members of the CoE. Even during the 1640s and 1650s many of them hoped to create a single state church along pure Calvinist lines. Others favoured a measure of toleration (a very unCalvinistic idea) and joined one of the newly-formed sects, the Quakers being the most obvious example to have survived into the 21st century. It was not until the implementation of the religious settlement of 1662 that the many of the strict Calvinist factions within the CoE found themselves unable to conform to it. For several generations these 'nonconformists' still hoped to rejoin the CoE and as late as the early eighteenth century some within the CoE wanted to relax its doctrines in order to allow them to do so. No one in the seventeenth century called themselves a Puritan.

[KarlGrenze]

Bob, apologies accepted. Maybe if we had taken History of Great Britain, the student wouldn't have made that comment. But I think that after reading the introduction to Puritan literature in the US, and the chapter of Puritans in the US history textbook, anyone could tell they were not related.

Thanks APB.

[Chronos]

Hey, I take offense at that, sjc! I do not wox weebles!

[Northern Piper]

Not really, not when the comments come out of the mouth of one of my best friends. Basically, for her the Orthodox, RCC, and Anglican/Episcopalian churches are Catholic because they follow a strict lithurgy, the way they organize Mass, their sacraments, etc.

Your friend has hit on one of the difficulties in fitting Anglicanism into the traditional Catholic/Protestant categories.

If you define Protestantism in terms of church organization, namely a rejection of the pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome, then Anglicanism is squarely Protestant.

But if you define it in terms of liturgy and theology, it's more difficult to say that the Anglican churches are definitely Protestant. For example, Anglicanism also maintains 7 sacraments, while most Protestant churches only recognize two: Baptism and Communion). In terms of sacramental theology and liturgy, Anglicanism shares a great deal with the Roman Catholic church, including the Nicene Creed, which states: "And I believe one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." (ie - "catholic" in the sense of universal church, and "apostolic" meanging the apostolic succession.

There is a great deal of diversity in the Anglican communion, both amongst the different national churches, and within them, so it is sometimes difficult to make a clear statement on this type of issue.

However, your friend's way to define "Catholic" certainly has some support if you approach the issue as one of theological doctrine rather than church organization.

[APB]

Originally posted by Northern Piper
But if you define it in terms of liturgy and theology, it's more difficult to say that the Anglican churches are definitely Protestant. For example, Anglicanism also maintains 7 sacraments, while most Protestant churches only recognize two: Baptism and Communion). In terms of sacramental theology and liturgy, Anglicanism shares a great deal with the Roman Catholic church, including the Nicene Creed, which states: "And I believe one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." (ie - "catholic" in the sense of universal church, and "apostolic" meanging the apostolic succession.

Many Protestant churches, including Presbyterians, accept the Nicene Creed. The phrase 'Apostolic Church' can be interpreted to mean the Church founded by the Apostles, something which most Protestant churches would most definitely apply to themselves.

What KarlGrenze's friend really means is that the CoE is one of the orthodox denominations. This view makes a certain amount of sense, but is by no means universally accepted. It is a view which finds its strongest supporters within the CoE itself. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches remain unconvinced, especially since the CoE started ordaining female priests. Some other Protestant denominations would reject the CoE's assumption that they are not orthodox as well. Some Anglicans would also argue that the Roman Catholic Church is not an orthodox denomination.

[Northern Piper]

Many Protestant churches, including Presbyterians, accept the Nicene Creed. The phrase 'Apostolic Church' can be interpreted to mean the Church founded by the Apostles, something which most Protestant churches would most definitely apply to themselves.

Sure, I agree that many Protestant churches accept the Nicene Creed; the question is what interpretation they give to it, and to parts such as the reference to the Apostolic Church.

My understanding is that the Anglican Communion interprets the phrase as meaning the Apostolic Succession, something that other Protestant churches, such as the Presbyterian church, does not do.

See for example the following extract from the Britannica's article on Anglicanism:

Anglicanism is set off from most other non-Roman churches in the West by its retention of and its insistence upon the apostolic succession of ordaining bishops. The Anglican claim to this apostolic succession, despite its repudiation by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, has largely determined the role of the Church of England in the discussions among the churches. Anglicanism has often taken the lead in inaugurating such discussions, but in such statements as the Lambeth Quadrilateral it has demanded the presence of the historic episcopate as a prerequisite to the establishment of full communion.

[KarlGrenze]

Basically, I think my friend meant both (liturgy and church organization AND theology) when she was dumping the Anglican/Episcopal church along with the RCC and Orthodox churches. She is Pentecostal, and for her, any church that practices an elaborated lithurgy similar to the RCC is a Catholic Church. Same things with the churches that keep the RCC sacraments and share similar beliefs in terms of saint devotion, confessions, and priesthood. She is not the only one who believes that way (other friends believe that also).