Cept when not: Miguel Servet was killed at the stake by the Calvinists.
Anglicanism is generally considered Protestant, and historically has identified itself as Protestant. The British monarch, who as you know is head of the Church of England, is required by law to be a Protestant, swears at his or her coronation to “maintain the laws of God, the true principles of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law”, and immediately after taking that oath bears witness to it by taking the (Anglican) Eucharist. There’s no doubt, therefore, in the home of Anglicanism that Anglicanism is Protestant. And the principal American expression of of Anglicanism, the Episcopalian Church, is formally title the Protestant Episcopalian Church of the United States of America (to distinguish it from those pesky Roman Catholics, who of course also have bishops and are therefore an “episcopalian” church).
Protestantism was originally so called because of protests against the Edict of Worms, but once the edict ceased to be a live issue the protest in Protestantism was understood to be a protest against the errors of Rome in general. And such a protest is fundamental to Anglicanism - it’s right there in Article XIX of the XXXIX Articles - “the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith”. How more Protestant can you get?
What you write about doctrine is certainly true, but from my (admittedly heathen) perspective there seems little difference between an Anglican liturgy and a Catholic one. In tidewater Virginia, for instance, Episcopalians are sometimes called “soft-shell Catholics,” perhaps to distinguish them form the less formally liturgical Protestant sects.
Just the other day, my wife pointed out how similar the Episcopalian Compline service we attend every Thursday night was to the Catholic equivalent in her breviary.
Yes, but a Lutheran Eucharistic liturgy is also strikingly similar to the Catholic (and Anglican) liturgy. And if Lutherans aren’t Protestants, who is?
Protestantism was never really about liturgy. In so far as there are differences in liturgies, they are an outcome of differences in theology - e.g. Protestants may spend relatively more time celebrating liturgies focussed on the reading of scripture and on preaching, and relatively less time celebrating eucharistic liturgies, even if the liturgies themselves are not that different from their Catholic counterparts.
It is fair to say, though, that in the wide range of approaches to liturgy (and a number of other things) that is manifested in Protestantism, Anglicans do tend to be at the more Catholic end of the range. And Anglicans are generally comfortable in affirming that they are both Catholic and Protestant.
The Anglican church, at least as a state church, was pretty much all about liturgy, I think. Look at Act of Uniformity 1558 and Act of Uniformity 1662. When you have Parliament decreeing the order of prayer and punishing those who don’t use that particular liturgy, it makes me think that liturgy is pretty important in that church.
I am a Anglican and the Anglican Church is called a Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church calls it’s self Catholic Church as well.
Now why do they say that ? well it’s in what the name means, it’s not a Christian Church if it’s not Catholic and that’s a fact.
The Roman Catholic Church is the “Roman” Catholic Church.
The Christian Orthodox Church is Catholic as well.
They all claim to be Catholic because they are Universal, under Christ leadership as the message is universal, not of just for one nation say and the word Catholic means the General Universal Apostolic Church relating to such as to the apostles in regard to the serving of God. Is 49:6 and Mat 16:18 28:19 and Mark 16:15.
As for protestant that’s just some protesting Catholic of what ever denomination and even most Roman Catholics are Protestant in fact, if they have a view that is not in line with the doctrines.
The Roman Catholic Church is not a denomination as such as the protestant Churches truly are just only denominations.
The RCC has leadership guidance from the Pope and the main 12 as such and is much more complex and much more vast and in depth than any of the Protestant Churches by far.
Right, but it seems to me that this formulation is a bit problematic in this thread.
Your whole paragraph here is written in the present tense, and the OP explicitly asked about differences in the 17th century, a time that was characterized not just by splits between Protestant and Catholic, but by splits among Protestantism about questions of church organization, doctrine, qualifications for membership, faith and works, etc., etc., etc.
What you’ve written is right, but it seems to take the part for the whole in conflating Anglicanism with Protestantism. Yes, Anglicans were Protestants, but they weren’t the only ones, and the Church of England was heavily criticized within England precisely because there were significant groups of Protestants who believed that the established Church had failed to live up to the promise of the Reformation.
Groups like John Winthrop’s Puritans recognized the doctrinal and organizational differences from Catholicism asserted by the Church of England, but they increasingly argued that these differences were being given lip service only, and that the Church was replicating the same hierarchies and political corruption, and the same sorts of theological problems, that Protestantism had sought to eliminate. For the Puritans, especially those who came to Massachusetts Bay, that meant dealing much more strictly with questions of faith and salvation.
Yes, but many modern Protestants tend to think of this faith as an act of personal will, and many believe that the repentant sinner can, though genuine and committed expressions and feelings of faith, help to bring about the necessary grace that gets you to heaven. The Puritans and others of a Calvinist bent went much further than this. They had no such optimism about human agency, and their God was an absolute and rather unsympathetic character, at least by the standards of modern evangelical Protestants who focus on God’s love.
For the Puritans, faith was a necessary but definitely not a sufficient condition for salvation. This went along with the Calvinist belief in predestination, the idea that each soul has been saved or damned by God absolute power even before the person is born, and that nothing you can do will change your eternal fate. The best you could generally hope for, in this worldview, was that your faith and your devotion, as part of a Godly community, would lead to some sign that you were (or were not) among the saved. And for these people, there was also general acceptance that God, in his infinite wisdom, had chosen only a minority of people to receive his everlasting grace.
This worldview made the Puritans a rather anxious bunch. Their anxieties about their faith, their commitment to God, their possible salvation, tensions between faith and reason, and all the other uncertainties of the Calvinist worldview are very nicely explained in Perry Miller’s classic work The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century.
Fact is that people only go to Heaven due to Jesus Christ himself saying so, anything other is just a works of mans ignorance and ego getting in the way, not to mention just satanic.
“Good works” are about ones works in Christ only, never ones own works as they are just as filthy rags, so if they are not worthy of the Holy Spirit they are just dead works.
Mans own works are worthless, just like Political Correctness is insanity. it can’t cut the grade and it’s only on the road that leads to damnation.
I’ll take non-sequiturs for $2000 please Alex.
So, Commodore, we can put you under “Protestant”?
No, that’s not fact. That’s opinion. And if you’d care to expound further on that opinion, we have a forum for that.
I wasn’t intending to conflate Anglicanism with Protestantism. I was just making the point that Anglicans are Protestants, not that they are the entirety of Protestantism. That was as true in the seventeenth century as it is today.
Protestantism is nothing if not diverse and, yes, Anglicans were criticised by other Protestants. And Anglicans themselves criticised other Protestants. That doesn’t change the fact that they were all Protestants.
Which suggests that the OP’s question (“Major differences between Catholicism & Protestantism in the 17th century?”) could use some clarification. Which Protestants does the OP have in mind? The differences between different Protestant traditions can be just as profound as the differences between some of those traditions and Catholicism.
We even change ours when they change theirs. Pope Frankie and the world’s Lutherans (not including Missouri Synod because they are pretty much German Baptists) are working toward reconciliation. Now, if they can just agree to disagree about transubstantiation.
No, we are “small ‘C’” catholics. For now.
Back in the seventeenth century, not even the most ardent extremists on either side maintained that anything of substance could turn on a typographical preference.
Pretty well all Christians consider themselves to be catholic. It’s right there in the apostles creed. Whether you write it with an upper case ‘C’ or a lower case ‘c’ is a matter of taste, not doctrine. For the record, (Roman) Catholics spell it with a lower case ‘c’.
Where Christians differ is in how catholicism is, or should be, expressed. There are differences between Catholicism and Protestantism on this, but also differences without Protestantism, and some Protestants are closer to the Catholic understanding of catholicism than they are to the understanding of other Protestants. And then Orthodox and Oriental Christians have their distinctive takes on this as well.
Hey! That’s ME! And it’s why I’m so comfortable in the ELCA, being a Cradle Catholic. Catholicism Lite, now with with female and gay clergy. My Music Minister is happily married to her wife, service having been performed by a former parishioner. A female one. In Iowa, because it wasn’t legal in Illinois yet.
Nah, all we have left of Luther’s 99 is transubstantiation vs his True Presence, which is inexplicably different from consubstantiation, and the pope, and we dig this one.
I think the Catholics can meet you half-way on that one.
More than halfway actually, it’s only (“only”) the priesthood that’s not open to women.
Women can’t be deacons, either. (Sorry, gals.)
There have been diaconesses though (way back when), as well as women who while not officially ordained, were performing many of the functions thereof in Mission lands (which sometimes appears to be the shorthand for “any place where we just don’t have enough priests around”). And it’s currently under review.