# Denominations: The Secret Origin Stories, and How They Got their Names **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 15, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627 "2003-03-15T18:26:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/1 "2003-03-15T18:26:40Z")
That title sounds like a **Fenris** parody on comics, but it’s in response to a quite real question, asked by **Copper Moon** over in MPSIMS. **Coldfire** agreed that GD was the place for it. I’m going to start it off by quoting his post and my response, and then C&P a series of posts of mine from [a Pizza Parlor thread](http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14033&perpage=15&pagenumber=1) that connect to the topic. Input, argument, disputation, and general discussion from others is welcomed. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Copper Moon** _ > Okay, I’m hijacking my own thread. Reading through all the different strains (I hate the word denomination) of Christianity I wonder where all the names come from. I used to be Catholic and don’t even know what that name means. “Lutheran” I assume comes from Martin Luther and the reformation. Anyone want to pipe in and explain how the name of their church identifies them? > _Originally posted by **Polycarp** _ > Good idea, and it happens I’ve done a series of posts that together try to answer that, focusing on origins of denominations, over on PP. With your permission, and the Mods.’ OK, I’ll start a thread that does that – probably in GD to allow for discussion, though it’s technically a GQ. I’m confident that others will have comments about why their denomination’s name is important to them. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/2 "2003-03-15T18:28:35Z")
Over on the Pizza Parlor **Michie** asked: > [@](#): > > Would there even be such a thing as a protestant… > if it weren’t for Henry VIII? > > Or am I getting my facts mixed up? > > How exactly did protestants come to be? > > Were all Christians Catholic or of one denomination at one time? I started answering as follows: > [@](#): > > There’s a lot of ground to cover here, and I’ll only touch on the highlights. > > First, the church has probably never been totally united, at least after Paul’s time. We have fragmentary evidence pointing to Ebionite local churches scattered hither and yon along the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, and while it’d take a bunch of theology to explain who they were and what they thought, it can be approximated by pointing out the 21st century guy who says, in effect, “Sure, I can believe that Jesus was a good man with some important teachings that moral people ought to follow, but don’t give me that three-gods-in-one crap!” > > Arius believed that Jesus was the Lord and Savior of all creation, but as the highest of created beings, not a person of a triune God. And Arians who followed his teachings were as strong as orthodox Christians for a period of time in the fourth century. There are still a few around, though not well organized. > > The Monophysites believed that Jesus had only a divine nature, not a human nature as well. They survive as the Coptic Churches of Egypt and Ethiopia and the small Jacobite Church in Syria. > > To explain the heresy of the Nestorians involves a bunch of complexities not suitable to go into here, but the bottom line is that they distinguished between the human nature of Jesus and the divine nature of Christ in a way that effectively made him schizophrenic. (The actual heresy is in something that probably affects only our Orthodox members – "the title “Theotokos” --God-bearer – for the Virgin Mary is in correct, for she was mother of His human nature only, not of His divine nature. For most Protestants, this can only be seen through the eyes of Mariolatry, but for the Orthodox, it was a way to honor Christ in His Incarnation through giving due respect to His mother as the means by which God the Son took on human nature in her womb.) A miniscule Nestorian church survives, primarily in Iraq. > > There are about a dozen other heresies against which the church combatted, each of which is probably reproducible in the teachings of some Protestant televangelist who probably thinks he invented them. > > But through this whole period, the church in general survived as local churches united in a single “denomination” led by five patriarchs, the Bishops of Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. Rome, interestingly, adhered to what came out of the theological controversies as orthodox teaching with only one exception, while the other three sees (Jerusalem having been reduced to a virtual nonentity after 130 AD) entered into and then renounced heresies. In addition, Rome was the sole patriarch of the late-Latin-speaking West, while the Greek-speaking East was divided among the other three. With the coming of Islam, the areas led by Antioch and Alexandria became largely Moslem, leaving Constantinople as the prime seat of the Eastern half of the church. > > Ecclesiastical power came to have a focus in these two patriarchates, and each claimed an authority over the church as a whole, and began to shoot nasty-grams back and forth from time to time. It climaxed in 1054 AD with the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicating each other – the point that is usually taken to mark the origins of the separate Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as opposed to the previous agreeing-to-disagree unified structure, with only the Monophysites, Nestorians, and what little survived of the Arians separated from it. > > Roman Catholicism rapidly evolved its own distinct doctrines, including focus on the Eucharist, the authority of the Pope, Mary as an extremely special saint, the church’s authority to forgive sins and to remit the punishment for them, and so on. For most Western (European) Christians, what the Catholic Church taught was the teaching of the church – that the East, fighting for its life against barbarians and Islamic conquerors, had maintained a quite different perspective on the issues, never came across to them. > > Reformers within Catholicism sprouted up. Bernard of Clairvaux tried to clean up the monastic system, and to focus belief on the coming Kingdom. Francis of Assisi, praying in a ruined church building, was called by God to “rebuild My church, which as you can see is falling into ruins” – and only gradually realized that God was talking about the Church as a whole, not about the building he was praying in. Dominic restored preaching as an art. Thomas Aquinas tried to make theology make sense in terms of the burgeoning interest in classical pholosophy. > > Meanwhile, the Pope and the bishops were rapidly acquiring extensive temporal power in competition with the kings and emperors of the time. Bishops ruled over large parts of Germany and constituted 43% of the college that elected the Emperor right down to Napoleonic times, and the Pope ruled the central third of Italy as a secular monarch until 1870. > > In addition to this, the Pope and the Roman Curia claimed the right to enforce canon law, which covered a variety of aspects now held to be secular law, across all of Christendom. He had immense moral authority from his role as earthly head of the Church, which was combatted by kings in France, the German states, Spain, England, Denmark, etc. as they were able. Sometimes they would refute his entire claim to temporal authority and effectively pull their nation’s church structure out of the Catholic Church, which he would return with excommunications and interdicts against them and their country until a compromise on the conflicting claims was established and peace restored between king and Pope. > > About 1400, in Bohemia, a scholarly priest named Jan Hus(s) began looking at classical writings and at the teachings of Rome in the light of them, and began to denounce Roman teachings as false. He was rapidly condemned as a heretic and executed, but his followers carried on, and remain the Moravian Brethren today. > > In Germany, Philipp Melanchthon, Martin Luther, and Martin Bucer questioned Catholic teachings, and ultimately founded an Evangelical Church that rejected much of Catholic teaching while preserving what they found to be true based on the Bible and the works of the early Christian scholars. They were joned by Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland and Jean Calvin in eastern France, whose teachings emphasized the sovereignty of God, the efficacy of Grace, and the relative insignificance of the Sacraments which had been for so long the focus of Catholicism. > > The condition on the continent was rapidly becoming one of each-man-his-own-theologian-and-Pope, and Henry Tudor, King of England, looked at this with a jaundiced eye. Though no more fond than any other king before or since of the Pope’s claims to temporal power in his kingdom, he was opposed to all the weird theological claims springing up, and would have none of it. He wrote a book defending Catholicism from the teachings of Luther and particularly Zwingli, and was rewarded by the Pope with the title “Defender of the Faith.” > > Continued… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/3 "2003-03-15T18:30:00Z")
Thomas Cranmer was an up-and-coming young cleric in the English church structure. He found himself drawn to the irenic teachings of Martin Bucer, that there was much to the Catholic doctrine that was founded on early teachings from the united church and redeemable if medieval accretions were scraped off, that the church’s doctrine should be founded in Scripture, that the Eastern conceptualization of some of the doctrines offered solutions to many Western disputes. Privately, he subscribed to Bucer’s views, while outwardly maintaining Catholic orthodoxy. Time passed. King Henry was his father’s second son, but had inherited the throne after the untimely death of his older brother Arthur during his father’s lifetime. What he’d inherited, along with the English monarchy, was his brother’s bride. Like most royal marriages at the time, it was an arranged one, to a daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella named Catherine. And with his brother’s death, it fell to him to marry the young widow. While this was forbidden by canon law, it was a political necessity, and he bowed to Realpolitik and did so. His father petitioned the Pope in his behalf, and he was graciously pleased to issue an exception to the canon law’s forbidding of the marriage. More time passed. Henry and Catherine had one daughter and a bunch of stillbirths. Henry, slightly superstitious, thought that the stillbirths were God’s punishment for his having sinfully married his brother’s widow. He petitioned Rome for an annulment. Influencing him was the fact that there was this pretty young girl among her ladies in waiting named Anne Bullen, who refused to commit adultery but who would have been quite willing to marry him if he weren’t already married. There was, however, a small problem. Arthur, sickly, had never consummated the marriage – a technical flaw in the presumption that they had validly been married. And Rome was at this time under the authority, and occupied by the troops, of the Holy Roman Emperor – who, by virtue of more dynastic marriages, was Queen Catherine’s nephew. He was adamantly opposed to a Papal ruling that would effectively brand his aunt a bigamist and adulteress. Henry’s solution was to revert back to what Kings of France and Emperors had done in the past – to deny the Pope’s authority to rule over matters of law in his kingdom. With a compliant Parliament backing him, he issued a writ making himself the ultimate authority over the English branch of the church, just as previous monarchs had. Then he petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was pleased to grant an annulment to the King who had appointed him and who had power of life and death over him. Problem solved. Except that Luther and Calvin were active on the continent, the Pope was getting tough on doctrine and discipline as a result, and no face-saving compromise was ever worked out. Cranmer was named Archbishop of Canterbury and hence spiritual head of the English Church after a bunch of other political/ecclesiastical history trivia we don’t need to get into. And he held the office when Henry died – head of the Catholic Church as it was expressed in England. Under the regents for Henry’s nine-year-old son Edward, who were all Protestants inclined to agree with Cranmer, he reformed the English Church on a Bucerian model, preserving the classic teachings of the early church and framing doctrine on a Protestant model in a church that preserved the apostolic structure and preserved the Apostolic Succession in its clergy. Edward died six years later, and was succeeded by his elder sister Mary, Catherine’s daughter. The church reunited with Rome under her, and she married Philip II of Spain. The annulment of Henry and Catherine’s marriage was reversed, so that she would be considered daughter of a valid marriage of the King. She died childless, and was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn (as it came to be spelled) and King Henry. The annulment of Henry and Catherine’s marriage was reinstated, so that she would be considered daughter of a valid marriage of the King (which of course would not be true if Henry were still married to Catherine in the eyes of God when he married Anne). Some years later, in 1570, Philip was eradicating heresy in his domains, to the Pope’s pleasure, and he and Elizabeth got into a dispute. (Remember that Philip had a claim on England as the surviving consort of her queen – he always claimed the title of King of England “by the crown matrimonial.”) At Philip’s behest, the Pope excommunicated Elizabeth and those who paid allegiance to her – a political move. That excommunication has never been rescinded. So the Church of England and all its daughter churches, including the Episcopal Church in America, are not the result of a revolt against Rome so much as they are the outgrowth of a bunch of political machinations in Reformation times. More… Edited to change “Holy Roman Empire” to “Holy Roman Emperor” (which I’d intended to type, in order to talk about why he was opposed to Henry’s annulment). [/quote] This addresses a question **Zev** raised some time ago in GQ, by the way – I’d thought I’d said most of this over here in GD as well. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/4 "2003-03-15T18:33:21Z")
**Oblio** , our Orthodox moderator, commented: > [@](#): > > It’s not merely a matter of “due respect” for Mary – it’s a matter of understanding the nature of Christ and of the Trinity. Firstly, Theotokos is most properly translated as “God-bearer” rather than Mother of God. Secondly, Christ was not infused with His divine nature once he left the womb; and to impart too much of a split between His divine and human nature can deny the union of the two. > > To quote the Council of Chalcedon (451), which tackled the question of the two natures: Christ is acknowledeged “in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures being in no way abolished by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one Person and one hypostasis.” > > As Oblio pointed out, protestants most often fall into the “Nestorian trap” when jumping backwards from Mary. > _[And, in response to what I said about Islam and the historical patriarchates, he added…]_ > > It should be pointed out that Islam didn’t take significant root in the population of the Middle East until about 900 AD, well after the last of the Great Councils around which the Eastern Church built itself. By this time, the conciliar model of Church governance was deeply embedded in the practice and belief of the East (and even as the Middle Eastern Churches were in “decline”, we see the rise of the Churches in Slavic nations). Also, the Eastern bishops, being under the more immediate domain of the Emperor never held any temporal authority, as the Pope came to have in Rome. Anyway, the question came down to whether the Pope should have primacy or supremacy, not which of the two Sees should have one or the other. The East felt Rome had a position of primacy, as would a chief justice of a court; the West felt it had supremacy, as would a monarch. > > Just a smallish historical note: the excommunication was actually between a Papal envoy to Constantinople and the Patriarch – both of which were lifted when that envoy, Cardinal Humbert, returned to Rome and the Pope learned what he had done. The people paid little attention to that day of 1054, but woke up to the problem when the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade burned the imperial city to the ground 150 years later. I answered as follows: > [@](#): > > Sorry about any confusion – I was trying to cover a lot of ground quickly, and the Theotokos remark was intended only to suggest that it’s the Orthodox to whom that title is a matter of any regular theological thought. But I completely agree with what you say. (Amusingly, the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Churches and the 22 of Methodism – pared down by Wesley from the 39 – both affirm the “First Four General Councils” including Chalcedon, which means that every Methodist is in fact bound to consider Mary as Theotokos, a fact that would surely surprise 99.99% of them!! ) > > Quagga, as Anglicanism separated from Catholicism, we tended to draw on the theological resources of the East – so it’s not surprising that WOI would say that; there are strong similarities in our understandings (for example, the traditional and growing focus on the Epliclesis in the Prayer of Consecration at the Eucharist, as opposed to the traditional Words of Institution focus of Catholicism and High Church Anglicanism). Don’t consider it a slam on Catholicism but merely a comparison (not “X and Y are better than Z,” but “X is more like Y than Z is”). Okay? > > BTW, I had some harsh words to say about Catholic belief in that summary, and I sincerely hope you recognized it as being focused on the late-medieval accretions, like the misuse of indulgenses and the Mass-is-not-for-communing-but-for-watching attitude, not on Catholicism as an institution.) > > I’m going to try to get into the origins of the other Protestant groups later tonight or tomorrow, but need to do a little research first. Others with a bit of historical expertise may want to jump in. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/5 "2003-03-15T18:34:54Z")
**Evee** asked: > [@](#): > > So does this mean the true church is the Roman Catholic since it was the first church? Evee And I asnwered > [@](#): > > Heh. There ain’t no good answer to that one, Evee. > > If St. Paul were to be magically plunked down here and now and asked what his opinion was of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or the Treasury of Merit, with no background on the evolution of those doctrines, I have a feeling that his answer might be rather unfortunate. (He’d probably say the same thing about icons and the insistence on grape juice at communion because “wine is evil,” to be totally fair. And the idea that Christians should mandate the civil authorities to hang the Ten Commandments in public places might make the author of “We are free from the Law” gag a bit.) > > The church as it now exists is the result of 2,000 years of evolution – and that goes for every branch of it. > > I tried to describe the evolution of the church (including the heretical bodies that split off) prior to the split between Rome and Constantinople above, and the Anglican split with Rome that came later in another post. > > Probably the best way to put it is the quirky and ironic line of an Episcopalian priest: “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church – and regret that it does not at present exist!” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/6 "2003-03-15T18:37:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Luther’s intent seems to have been to reform the Catholic Church as a whole, or as much of it as he could influence to his views, rather than to form a separatist group. Lutheran churches were the state churches, the official faith of the citizenry, in much of Germany and, a short time later, in Scandinavia. In Sweden and Finland, the Apostolic Succession was preserved. And Lutheran churches are extremely strong on the preservation of the “purified apostolic faith” – i.e., cleansed from what they’d term the “accretions of Catholic doctrine.” In America, most Lutherans belong to either the (fairly liberal) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) or the (strongly conservative) Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church. There is also a small Wisconsin Synod which is IIRC quite conservative. > > The idea of one true church enforced by the state on its citizens was strong throughout this period, and includes the Reformed churches which base their teachings on Calvin’s. Among such churches were those of the Netherlands, some of the Swiss cantons including Geneva and Zurich, and a few small German principalities. As I understand it, the Reformed Church in America owes its origin to an amalgamation of American colonists belonging to several of these. > > Where Calvinism became strongest, however, was in Scotland, where John Knox reformed the formerly Catholic Kirk. Like many others, he was interested in preserving what he understood to be the original church of the apostles, but his studies convinced him that the terms episcopoi (bishops) and presbuterioi (elders) were used synonymously in Paul’s writings. He therefore devised a polity in which a council of preaching elders backed by a council of lay “ruling elders” was the standard for the church’s government, electing from among themselves a Moderator as their administrative officer between sessions of the synod and presbytery. The Church of Scotland was Presbyterian from the mid-1500s on except for a couple of unfortunate intervals when the English attempted to enforce episcopalianism on them, with very poor consequences. There remains an Episcopal Church of Scotland in consequence of these but it is very small. And American Presbyterians organized in accordance with the Scottish example. > > In England, meanwhile, the Puritans had been trying to “cleanse” the established, episcopal church of a lot of the tradition which it preserved from pre-Reformation days, considering it as “Popery and mummery” rather than meaningful ceremony done in accordance with God’s intent. As it became more and more evident during the 1600s that they would not succeed in convincing the leadership of their goals, they began to take political action, culminating in the revolt against Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth (and I simplify drastically here, as there were a lot of political causes not connected with religion involved there too). When Cromwell’s death left them leaderless, the established church and the monarchy were put back in place – but most Puritans became Separatists, of which there were a few even before this. In addition to a small English presbyterian church, they organized on a congregational model, some retaining infant baptism and others feeling that only believers’ baptism fit the gospel model. The Congregational Puritans settled much of New England, and remained a significant force in American religion for centuries. The Baptists also emigrated to America in large numbers. > > With the passage of time, many Congregationalists became very uncomfortable with the established Calvinism, double predestination, and so on, and saw it as at odds with the idea of God’s grace being irresistable and extended to all, and hence became Universalists. Others rejected the divinity of Christ (which is of course nowhere spelled out in Scripture, though it pervades everything said about Him to the point where it seems obvious to a believer that He is in some sense God) and became Unitarians. > > In the 1950s, the national organization of the Congregationalist Churches merged with the small German-based Evangelical and Reformed Church (which appears to have been based on some compromise between Luther’s and Calvin’s teachings, but about which I’m not at all familiar) to form the United Church of Christ. The Universalists and the Unitarians merged; there is a thread started by NYCNative in the Freezer that describes a bit more about their beliefs and practices. > > To be continued… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/7 "2003-03-15T18:38:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Continuing my saga, in the 1700s Anglicanism had become a very laxadaisical (where have I seen that word before? ) and rote sort of piety, and such men as William Law and George Whitfield set out to try to bring about a new and more vibrant piety within it. Among these men were the brothers John and Charles Wesley, priests of the Church of England, who organized a group that would practice a very systematic, methodical form of devotion. In token of this, they were derisively termed the methodist society, and adopted it as their formal name. > > For over 20 years, the Methodist Societies continued to be a call to holiness of life within the Church of England. But the Bishop of London, a latitudinarian, was loath to ordain any of the Methodists as preachers, and eventually John Wesley took matters into his own hands, and, borrowing a leaf from the Presbyterian theorists, convinced himself that he had authority as a priest of the church to ordain, and proceeded to do so. This effectively marks the beginning of the Methodist Church, although Wesley considered himself a member of the Church of England all his life, and is honored in our Calendar of Saints. > > When he sent Philip Coke and Francis Asbury to the New World, they were to act as “general superintendents” over the Methodist lay preachers here, guiding and counseling them and where necessary taking authority. Asbury considered his job to be equivalent to a bishop’s, though, and adopted that title. Hence the Methodist Church in America is episcopal in polity, though in England it’s more or less presbyterian. > > With the passage of time, groups convinced of their own rightness of doctrine split off from the Methodist Church. In particular there was a group of denominations claiming that one might be sanctified by the Holy Spirit to a state of perfection and holiness while still alive. These “holiness” churches included the Church of God (Anderson, IN), the Church of the Nazarene, and the Wesleyan Holiness Church. Piety in these churches was quite heavily directed towards the Holy Spirit as the author of sanctification. > > In 1905-06, this focus on the Holy Spirit led to people praying for, and apparently receiving, the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” as outlined in I Corinthians 12 and 14, and the churches deriving from that series of revivals became known as the Pentecostal Churches. Among major Pentecostal denominations are the Assembly of God and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN – the two churches named the “Church of God” are distinguished by where their headquarters are located for clarity’s sake). A continuing interest in the Gifts of the Spirit sparked the Charismatic Renewal of the 1970s and 1980s in the mainline churches, both Catholic and Protestant. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/8 "2003-03-15T18:40:45Z")
After a bunch of exchanges regarding various sidelights on all this, we got into the Sunday service (Eucharist or the classic Protestant style). > [@](#): > > Ah. Among the reformers, Hus was first by well over a century, with Wyclif and the Lollards (sounds like a band name! ) in England – Wyclif was not merely a Bible translator but a severe critic of Catholic theology. Then Luther followed closely by Calvin and Zwingli, and then Cranmer about 15 years later. > > When a local church got together in apostolic days, it was ordinarily on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday) and the normal service was readings and a teaching from the presbyteros or episkopos who led the church, followed by the celebration of the holy communion – every Sunday. The “infrequent communion” thing of Protestant Americans is derived from the idea that while frontier communities would get together to worship every Sunday, the guy who was in their faith tradition authorized to celebrate the communion was a circuit rider who would show up once a month or less. Do this for enough years and it becomes a tradition, to be carried on for its own sake, and given theological basis in the idea that communion is somehow more deeply felt, more “special,” if it’s done less often. > > (The above is, IIRC, the reason why the Disciples of Christ, trying to go back to an apostolic model, have communion every Sunday.) > > The normal Protestant Sunday worship service, by the way, is an adaptation, through the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and John Wesley’s service books modeled on it, of the “daily offices” of the monastic communities, which would worship together seven times a day. > > As for the question, “Was it Catholic or Orthodox?” that is truly a matter of argument – and let me play a little game with you here. The word catholic means “universal” – the standard that is practiced everywhere. The word orthodox means, effectively, “true teaching” – as opposed to heretical. So the original (mostly) undivided Church tried to be catholic and orthodox, following a common standard adapted to local conditions everywhere and preserving true teachings. It also tried to be evangelical – spreading the Gospel – and reformed – cleansed of all impurity. It tried to be apostolic – following in the faith of the apostles, and was episcopal – looking to the outstanding clergy who were selected as overseers for guidance as to how to be all those other things. For us today to say, “I’m Catholic,” “I’m Episcopal,” “I’m Orthodox,” “I’m Evangelical,” “I’m Reformed,” or “I’m Apostolic” as a signal of what denomination one belongs to is so far from what the early churchmen would have meant by those terms that it’s ironic – kind of like the fights that break out in the News Stand every so often about whether being a true Christian means you have to hate Moslems (who somehow suddenly stopped being “your neighbors” by following another faith, kind of like those evil Samaritans according to the Jews), or practice love and charity towards all – except maybe those who oppose you politically :rolleyes: . ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/9 "2003-03-15T18:45:07Z")
As long as I’ve been on this board you would think I would have learned how to quote one thread in another, but I haven’t. Anyway, **Copper\_moon** , in the MPSIMS thread mentioned in the OP of _this_ thread by **Polycar** , stated he didn’t know where the term _Catholic_, came from, as a name for a church. I answered it to the best of my ability there, so if anyone is interested they can check it out. Hopefully I answered correctly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/10 "2003-03-15T19:03:59Z")
I always thought that the word “catholic” meant “universal”, and is used in that way in a non religious context as well. Calling the church Catholic just is a way of saying it is THE true church for ALL of mankind. Is it more complicated than that? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/11 "2003-03-15T19:33:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*I always thought that the word “catholic” meant “universal”, and is used in that way in a non religious context as well. Calling the church Catholic just is a way of saying it is THE true church for ALL of mankind. Is it more complicated than that? \*\* **John** , best answer is one final exchange from the Pizza Parlor thread. **Your Quagga** , a compassionate and devout Catholic, said: > [@](#): > > i would agree with this…i would also say that the Christian body at the time was catholic and orthodox (small letters all around, being these are words we use today which were meaningless as “denominations” at the time)…the Catholic Church still calls itself catholic in that original sense of the word…the capitalization came later, as Oblio pointed out, when it grew necessary to distinguish it from a number of heresies…the Catholic church does not believe in denominations itself…there is only one Church of Christ. > > nowadays calling oneself small-c “catholic” has become rather fashionable, though it comes with the disclaimer: but not roman! > > sheesh… > > that is all right, we love you and consider you incorporated into the one Church regardless… I answered: > [@](#): > > The tendency, since Vatican II, to refer to the rest of us, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Protestants alike, as “separated brethren” is one I find very thoughtful and kindly. > > I cannot fault Catholicism’s attitude that it preserves the true faith given to the Apostles, even while I disagree with much of it. If Catholics didn’t think that, they’d be something else! > > But in recognizing the unity in Christ of all believers, while explicitly recognizing that many of them are in fact separated from what they (the Catholics) believe to be the true Church, Catholics are showing Christian brotherhood while standing firm by what they believe to be the truth about dogmata. That can only work for good! ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/12 "2003-03-15T20:06:02Z")
Fascinating summary, Polycarp. Thanks! What about the Quakers? Do you know as much about more modern heresies as you do about the ancient ones? I’m wondering how distinctions come to be made between ‘acceptable’ deviations that are considered by most people to be under the umbrella of Christianity, and those that are heretical. Or did y’all stop considering anything really heretical at some general point in time? I’m just thinking that the little I know about UU congregations is that many of them don’t (won’t) mention Jesus, which make calling them Christian seem a little odd. I have on my shelf what was surely someone’s doctoral dissertation entitled ‘Heresies of the High Middle Ages’ (which I bought mainly to read up on the Albigensians, but haven’t had enough motivation to look at more of it than that) which has over 800 pages just on heresies from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. So the notion was still current as late as that. And Hus was killed as a heretic in the 14th. What about Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. Did the RC church consider them heretics? Would they have (or did they) kill them. And what’s a Huegenot, anyway? Finally, IIRC, Henry confiscated a great deal of property from the church and closed many (all) of the monasteries when he did his thing. (I think they had started to own so much of the land that other political/social problems were resulting, and in fact that his move was influenced by same, i.e. that the marriage thing wasn’t all there was to it. Though you mentioned the tension in general between the church and the monarchs.) My question, though, is whether this was the general trend: as other religions (or strands of christianity) came into prominence, did they simply take over the properties that belonged to the RC church? Or was that peculiar to England’s reformation being initially at the top of the hierarchy? Is this really a GD or a GQ thread? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Dickerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Scott\_Dickerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Dickerson)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/13 "2003-03-15T20:09:22Z")
Polycarp– I trust it be not a hijack to commend you, now and always, for these informative, compassionate, and fair-minded discussions of religious matters. ---
**Author:** ![Meros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Meros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meros)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/14 "2003-03-15T23:36:57Z")
Before I begin this it may help for me to give a rough explanation of the structure of the United Methodist Church. Each church has at least one Lay Leader, a Pastor and an Administrative Board. The Lay Leader’s main job is as a “substitute pastor” to run the services and/or preach in the Pastor’s absence. The AB is in charge of the general operations of the Church. The board president, lay leader, pastor and secretary are all delegates to the Charge Conference which is a small group of churches (usually a 3 or 4 town radius) which is governed by a Bishop. Charge Conferences are organized into larger Districts governed by a District Superintendent. Districts come together at the State Conference and the States in the National Conference. The NC being the head governing body of the denomination. That being said, \*\* Polycarp \*\* If I may add something to modern day Methodism. There is currently slowly growing split in the denomination between two movements referred to as “reconciling” and “transforming.” The second of the two being the smaller “faction” and the one to which I, and most of the Methodist churches in Southern NJ belong. The basic divide is over what occurs to a person at the time they are saved. The Reconciling Movement believes and teaches, basically, that when you are saved, if you live a sinful lifestyle you will be forgiven of that lifestyle even if you never repent. The Transforming Movement believes that if, when a person is saved, he is living a sinful lifestyle, the Holy Spirit will work within the person to help him overcome those sins if you truly repent. The reason for the split, and the reason when asked I will say that I belong to a church which is Methodist in name only is because the National Conference of the UMC (the nearest equivalent I can think of may be the Council of Cardinals in the RCC) endorses the Reconciling Movement. This is where the problems come in. Some Methodist ministers have taken it upon themselves to perform mariages for homosexual couples (save your flames for later…I don’t want to get into a debate over whether this is right or wrong) and to also recognize those marriages among clergy. A decision was made a few years ago to allow for the Church’s insurance benefits to be extended to the “life partners” of homosexual clergy. Now, for the most part, it could be accepted. Such differences have been a part of most denominations for most of the life of the Church. But recently there was a series of events in our region that caused great outcry and thoughts of leaving the denomination over a group of events over the last few years. Our DS was recently involved in a divorce which was later discovered to be from his second wife and was, for the second time, due to marital unfaithfulness, though this time that unfaithfulness was with a male. (We did not know about the first time until the second was occuring) The District Churches drew up a petition asking the State Conference to remove him from his position and they refused (North Jersey having more representatives and being largely of the Reconciling Movement). The decision was appealed to the National Conference and it was decided by them that seeing as he was saved, ordained, and was for most intents and purposes a Christian, there was no reason to remove him. There are other small differences between the two movements as well. The main of these being a noted de-emphasis on missions by the Reconciling Movement while the Transforming feeling that Missions and spreading the word should be one of the primary reasons for the existence of the Church. It would seem even some of the older denominations are not beyond experiencing dissent among their ranks. It may end up in the next few years we will have yet another denomination to add to the list. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/15 "2003-03-16T07:21:08Z")
Great posts, **Poly** , as usual. And I have learned a lot. I am not sure my own experience in churches is valid, or of interest, but it seems to me that it might show a bit of light into the corners of American Church realities. It certainly is not a theological or doctrinal analysis of religion in any sense. I hope it isn’t too much of a hijack. I grew up a Down the Road Military Protestant. I was a Protestant, because I was not a Catholic, but neither was I a Jew. I was a Military Protestant, because my Dad was in the Army, and so we moved to another town, and another church, about every two years. But dad’s dogtags said Protestant. (OK, actually they said P.) His parents were Lutherans, although I understand that my grandfather seldom attended. I was a Down the Road Military Protestant, because my Mother always chose the church closest to our house to attend, and take me to. Her parents were a Roman Catholic, and a Christian Scientist. I don’t recall ever hearing them discuss religion. About fifteen years into this ecumenical orgy, I met the Reverend Mister William Basom. He was the pastor of the Evengelical United Brethren Church, just down the road from my house. He advised me to think of Jesus as a person, because the theology was very hard to understand, without a lot of school, and I was a very poor student. On the other hand, I seemed to be able to understand people fairly well. We studied the bible, together, during my confirmation classes. He asked me if I believed that Jesus was real. I did. He asked me if I believed that living my life according to the teachings of Jesus was a good idea. I did. He said that was probably enough. I was skeptical. He promised me that Jesus would love me, anyway. I am not sure what the name of this denomination is. I tend to just call myself a Christian. I pretty much forgot about the whole thing for the next fifteen years. I did still consider it real, in an intellectual way. I just didn’t think about it much. The things that happened to make it seem real in a personal way didn’t change my theology at all, though. But they did prove the Late Reverend Mister Basom to be exactly correct. I did believe in Jesus, Jesus did love me, and it was enough. God bless him. Tris ---
**Author:** ![Ronin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Ronin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ronin)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/16 "2003-03-16T19:58:45Z")
thx fer that update Meros on the UMC (I use to be Methodist) “reconciling” and “transforming.” I wasn’t up on this ---
**Author:** ![Foolonthehill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Foolonthehill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foolonthehill)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/denominations-the-secret-origin-stories-and-how-they-got-their-names/161627/17 "2003-03-16T21:50:03Z")
Polycarp; ie; Luther and his internal reforms. The German princes started using Luther’s protests to solidify their political positions, (ie; overthrow the influence of the Bishops), and in effect started to form their own churches. As this “schism” was forming, the philosopher Erasmus and the artist Drurer, wrote a series of letters to each other, Erasmus defending the Universal church, and Drurer defending the idea that the chuch was so corrupt, a new chuch had to be built. These letters still exist and make for some fine reading. The debate still goes on. BTW Drurer also “flamed” Erasmus, sending him a drawing of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse in which Erasmus is portrayed as Death.