http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117336&tocid=41561#41561.toc
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.
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?
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. 
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.
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…
DSY, slight hijack of my own post:
US history is not my history. We take US history and US literature.
End of hijack.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
Hey, I take offense at that, sjc! I do not wox weebles!
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.
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.
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:
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).