Heck, it’s required at all Christmas dinners in MA. 'the pity.
I thought only a Catholic could be a Heretic. Anyway this is Arizona and we do not as a rule treat our food with any substance that has a skull and cross bones on the package.
Ah. A regional heresy. 
Actually, only an Erudite can be a Heretic.
One of these days, someone’s going to start putting me on ignore for the gratuitous Everquest jokes.
I’m an Episcopalian.
It’s pretty simple.
Episcopalians are comfortable with notions of doubt and we like a lot of ritual ** in our church services. You might even call us poncy**.
If you believe in** Papal Authority**, you’re Catholic. Ew.
If you’re one of the Orthodox Churches, then we’re like kissin’ cousins. You also like to parade around wearing **fancy brocade ** and diss the Pope. Women have dubious status in your church.
If you’re Presbyterian, **your manners ** are likely to be good enough to pass muster.
Some **Methodists ** wrote some teriffic hymns. Methodists don’t smoke and drink nearly enough to get along with Episcopalians. We’d like to be friends, but our nasty habits are scandelous to more serious Bible Thumpers.
After that, it gets very fuzzy, very quickly.
<All in fun. 
>
Tea and cake all around.
Awright, when are you a Protestant, and when are you a schismatic? Is there really any difference, except in name? If so, where’s the line of demarcation, 1054? (And then, of course, there are the “Resistance” Orthodox churches, which I guess are something other than “schismatic”, though I don’t know what that is…)
There are two schisms that are referred to when talking about schisms and the Catholic Church.
The first schism was the split of the Eastern Church from the Western Church in 1054.
The second schism, the ‘Great Schism’, was when there were two Popes - one in Rome, and one in Avignon, both claiming Papal Authority. This schism lasted from 1378 to 1417.
The Protestant churches that came out of the Reformation are not considered schismatic. Martin Luther and John Calvin never tried to take over running the machinery of the Catholic Church. Indeed, they focused on the authority of Scripture, vs. the authority of the Church.
Well, the second schism was resolved, and, again, by this definition, it’s hard to see where non-Lutheran or Calvinist sects fit into “Protestant”. I understand technically what a schismatic is, but again, I’m having a hard time coming up with a good definition of “Protestant” in any sense but historical.
Actually, wasn’t the schism btw. the Eastern and Roman Churches the “Great Schism”? And do you have to set up another Pope (or equivalent, with attendant hierarchy) to cause a true “schism”? I mean, perhaps in a narrowly historical sense, yes, but is that the only proper use of “schism” in this context?
The Eastern Church didn’t set up a rival Pope, so that doesn’t follow. There is no Pope of the Orthodox system, although the Patriarch of Constantinople (is the seat still called Constantinople, any Orthodox Dopers? Or is it Istanbul now?) plays (to my knowledge) a role very like the modern Archbishop of Canterbury (First among Equals). The Orthodox Church isn’t as monolithic as the Roman Catholic Church, either. It has a tendency to split into national churches (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc).
Anglicanism sort of straddles the middle ground between the Catholic system and the Protestant system, really. On the Catholic side you have groups like the RCC, the Orthodox churches, the Copts, the Roman Catholic (Byzantine Rite), the Eastern Catholics, and the American Catholic Church (an actual system so named, not American Catholics in general…they’re not in communion with Rome but they are part of the Catholic “system”.) This grouping is characterized by (usually) a hierarchy of avowed priests and bishops, relatively elaborate ritual, the recognition of Church tradition alongside the Bible, and a great deal of pomp, dignity, and a definite feeling of great age.
On the “Protestant” side, you have the usual run of denominations we see in the US, countless small denoms that nobody ever hears about, “house churches”, a slew of tiny denominations begun by missionaries in Asia, Africa and South America, and individual Christians who take their salvation directly from the Bible and the touch of Christ. This grouping tends to be characterized by either direct congregational control of the ministry or by a very loose and shallow hierarchy, fairly simple services, Sola Scriptura, a tendency to accept some rather undignified actions if inspired by the Spirit, and a much more modern feeling (think bright new wood versus massive cold marble).
Anglicanism bridges that gap, although rarely within a single congregation. As has been mentioned, there are High Church (much closer to the Catholic system) and Low Church (much closer to the Protestant system).
This thread has actually made me think quite a bit today…I was raised Roman Catholic and I’ve never heard that to be Protestant, a church had to arise directly from the Luther/Calvin movement. Everything Christian that wasn’t Catholic (in the sense noted in the above paragraph) was Protestant.
According to Wikipedia, the term “Protestant” referred originally to the Diet of Speyer in 1529, where a group of cities and princes protested against the Edict of Worms, an imperial decree which condemned Martin Luther and forbade the promulgation of Lutheran teachings. The protest was not motivated by a commitment to freedom of religion, but by the fact that those protesting themselves held Lutheran views.
Originally, then, the term “Protestant” referred specifically to Lutherans. Calvinist/presbyterian churches were called “Reformed”. Fairly early on, however, the terms was broadened, and Calvinists began to call themselves Protestants, and to be called Protestants by others. The protest was no longer against the Edict of Worms specifically, but against the “errors of Rome”. (Since the Edict of Worms was revoked in 1555, Protestantism would have had a short shelf-life if it had remained focussed on that.)
Different groups which consider themselves Protestant can, obviously, identify and protest against different errors of Rome. In general, a church describes itself/is described as Protestant if its theology is significantly influenced by or inherited from Lutheranism or Calvinism, and specifically by Lutheran or Calvinist objections to Catholic doctrine.
So far as the Church of England goes, at the time of the Henrician breach there was little theological change. However under the ministers of Henry’s successor Edward VI, the Church of England was heavily influenced by Lutheranism and to some extent by Calvinism, and began to describe itself as Protestant. Matters see-sawed the other way under Mary, before settling in what we now consider to be a classic Anglican compromise under Elizabeth. The Thirty-Nine Articles were adopted in 1571; they adopt typically Lutheran or Calvinist positions on a number of matters, including the sufficiency of scripture and the identification of only two sacraments, but they retain a number of Catholic features, such as episcopacy. At all times since them the Church of England has considered itself, and has usually been considered by others, as Protestant. British law has required since 1701 that the monarch be a Protestant; all have been communicant members of the Church of England. Many Anglicans, however, see the Anglican tradition as being both Protestant <i>and</i> Catholic.
Churches descended from the Church of England, like the Episcopalian Church, are likewise generally considered Protestant. And, as already noted, the full title of the Episcopalian Church is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
Yeah, but I thought originally Leo IX and Michael Cerularius must have felt themselves coequal, or they wouldn’t have gone around excommunicating each other.
Well, Michael Cerularius DID consider himself coeval to Leo. If he didn’t, there would have been no schism, no? Of course, he thought that not because he thought he himself was on the same higher level, but because he thought that Leo was not.
Schism: When a valid bishop (and, usually, a goodly number of his ‘subjects’) breaks union with the Bishop of Rome (i.e, the Pope) AND Rome (i.e., the powers that be in the Roman Catholic Church) does not declare the ordination of new bishops (ordained by that schismatic bishop) to be invalid.
The theological background: Bishops have the fullness of sacramental orders (the Holy Orders of deacon, priest, and bishop). They are full-fledged successors of the Apostles and absolute rulers of their diocese, with the exception of having to accede to the universal authority of the Pope. If they recognize the Pope as having this universal authority, they are considered to ‘be in communion with Rome.’ An ordained Bishop is ordained forever (the ordination can not be undone).
So, if a validly ordained bishop decides to ‘break away’ from Rome, he is still a valid bishop. All validly ordained bishops (whether in union with Rome or not) can ordain (create) priests or new bishops as part of the ordinary powers of being a validly ordained bishop. So, if a schismatic bishop ordains priests and new bishops, Rome recognizes those new priests and bishops to be validly ordained priests and bishops with all the powers inherent in validly ordained priests and bishops. Only thing is, those new priests and bishops are also schismatic, unless they reconcile themselves to Rome.
This is what happened in the Great Schism of the East. The Eastern patriarchs (bishops) broke with Rome, no longer acknowledging the Pope’s Primacy. (It was a mutual ex-communication of East v. West with politics being more a factor than theology – ain’t that always the way?) And so was created the Orthodox Churches as the Church in Eastern Europe and the Middle East broke down into national, ethnic, and language-based liturgical families… The Greek Orthodox, The Russian Orthodox, etc…
Both Rome and the Orthodox churches recognize the validity of one another’s Apostolic succession, validity of orders, and validity of sacraments. Pope John Paul II, being from Poland, has been very reconciling toward the Orthodox churches. The mutual ex-communications have been lifted, though, there is still not full re-union – the Orthodox are still schismatic. The Romans fully welcome the Orthodox to participate in RC liturgies and sacraments. The Orthodox are less welcoming, still smarting from the Crusades and the fear of being swallowed up by the RC.
And to complicate matters, since the Great Schism, some of the Orthodox bishops reconciled with Rome, creating Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (most famously, the Byzantine Catholic Church). These are full-fledged Roman Catholic churches (as much as the “Latin Rite” Roman Catholic Church of the West) in full communion with Rome, with the Pope as their head, but they follow their own rites and code of canon law. Their territory overlaps the Orthodox Churches and there is much friction between the two. Previously these re-united Eastern Churches were called ‘Uniate’ or ‘Oriental’ Churches… both terms are out of favor.
Now that we understand what makes a Church schimsatic let’s deal with what make a Church Protestant:
Protestant: A church not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church AND the sacramental ordination of its bishops are so heretical or broken, that the RCC doesn’t consider the ordination of those bishops to be valid. When the Lutheran and Calvinist ‘protesting’ churches broke communion with Rome, they developed a theology of sacrament ordination (if they even attempted to retain ordination at all) which negated essential elements of what the RCC considered necessary for the ordination to be considered valid. And so the RCC did not recognized the newly created bishops and priests (if they even kept bishops and priests) to be validly ordained. With validly ordained priests, the celebration of the Eucharist is not considered valid – which is why the RCC will recognize the validity of Orthodox Eucharist, but not Protestant Eucharist).
Note that from the RCC perspective, baptisms do not require ordained clergy – anyone may be a valid baptizer (even the non-baptized!) if the correct formula is used. Baptisms are valid if water is used and the trinitarian formula of “I baptize you (or, be baptized…) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
And so, from RCC point of view, Protestants are valid Christians with an invalid clergy (and thus, invalid Eucharist). Schismatics have a valid clergy (and thus, valid Eucharist). Both are not in union with Rome.
And these leads us to the category of ‘other.’
Other ‘christian-like’ ecclesial bodies: Invalid baptism!! That’s all there is to it. The invalid baptism comes mostly from a heretical trinitarian theology that denies The Son as being a co-equal person of the Trinity. And so, these ecclesial bodies do not use the valid baptismal formula, or, even if they do, their understanding of the Trinity is so deficient, they are not baptizing in the way the true Church of Christ intends. These groups are also noted for not having the Nicene Creed as part of their beliefs. This group includes the LDS, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witness, etc…
Let’s use the next post to deal with the special case of the ‘Reformed Churches.’
Peace.
Oops. In the section on Protestants, this should be… “With invalidly ordained priests, the celebration of the Eucharist is not considered valid…”
On the Reformation:
When Luther protested against the RCC, his intention was to reform the RCC, not to completely break away.
Given the political situation of German princes and the poor reaction to criticism of the RCC, things fell apart and a mutal break occurred. The bishops that separated from Rome were technically in schism (see above post).
However, given the atmosphere of polarizing extremism (on both Luther’s and the RCC’s parts), and the influence of other ‘protesters’ (the Calvinists and Anabaptists), the Lutheran movement did more than look for “reform,” they did a wholesale revamping of theology and liturgical practice. The changes made were so extreme, that the RCC (perhaps, too readily) declared the Lutheran theology and practice of ordination heretical and invalid. Thus, the Lutherans were no longer schismatic, they were heretical “Protestants.”
The same pattern occurred with the Church of England. When Henry forced a separation from Rome (forced on some, others were eager to separate), those English bishops that went with him were in schism. Then with the influence of the Calvinists, Anabaptist, Puritan, and other ‘low churches,’ the CoE was not only schismatic, but, from the point of view of the RCC, heretical. The RCC declared the ordination of CoE bishops to be invalid due to the Protestant theology that the CoE had adopted in the compromise that UDS mentioned above (good, post, UDS!)
Also note from UDS’s post that there are members of the CoE and its sister churches (e.g., the Episcopal Church) who consider themselves “reformers” of the RCC and those who are more attuned to the “Protestant” renunciation of the RCC. This is the so-called ‘high church’ and ‘low church’ factions in the CoE and EC.
Some CoE adherents are known for being so ‘high church’ that the joke is if you say to them ‘Good morning!’ they would have to first check with the Pope to see if that is true. Some CoE and EC bishops have even sought to be (re-)ordained by schismatic bishops so that their episcopacy will be recognized by the RCC as being valid.
Mostly, the more theological education that a CoE, EC, or Lutheran has, the more likely that they: are ecumenically minded; desire the full communion of all Christians; hold less animosity, fear, and prejudice against the RCC; and see themselves as “Reformers” rather than “Protestants.”
However, many adherents of the CoE, EC, and Lutheran Church are very happy to be considered “Protestant,” with is also the point of view of the RCC.
Peace.
According to Jurph, the Episcopal church generally hold with apostolic succession (the idea that priests are ordained descendants of St. Peter). Is that true of Episcopalians on this board? (I know there are quite a few.)
I was raised Episcoalian. In our version of the Apostle’s creed we said: “the holy catholic and apostolic church”.
I thought apostolic meant that the bishops - not the priests - are consecrated through a succession of the laying on of hands that can be traced back, unbroken, to the apostles. In the creeds, is it quite clear that ‘apostolic’ does not also have the meaning of holding to apostolic doctrine?
I myself prefer to interpret the Bible as enjoining us to have no professional ordained clerical class, but the personal quality of the leader (male or female) is the most important thing.
I think from what I’ve read here that the Episcopalians are neither Protestant nor Catholic – they clearly break enough rules that the RCC would not have them, but they’re only “Protestant” when you use that word to mean “non-Catholic”. Any more rigorous definition of the term would have to exclude the Episcopal Church, either for historical absence from the Reformation, or because their bishops still truck with apostolic succession. And of course that pesky “Trinity” keeps them from being accepted as Muslims or Jews. ;j