Talk:Protestantism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Early Stuff

ÁŖA summary of Protestant views on homosexuality should be started on the new page discussing Religion and homosexuality.

What's the best way to mention the oft-heard usage, "Catholics and Christians" whereby Christians refers to Protestants or some supposedly authentic subgroup, and Catholics wind up sounding non-Christian? --Ed Poor

The best way would be to just say "Christians." The usage "Catholics and Christians" is meant to make Catholics sound non-Christian. The usage "Catholics and Protestants" is meant to make both the Catholics and those who originated from them sound like non-Christians.

English seems to lack a word for Christian denominations which have never been a part of the Roman Catholic Church, such as some of the Syrian churches, the Saint Thomas Christians of India, and the Ti-Ping movement. These are often called Protestant but the useage is not correct because they did not protest against and leave the Roman Catholic Church in the first place, but formed separately.

Eastern Orthodox (never part of the Roman Catholic Church, ever). Primarily of the eastern Imperial/Greek tradition.
Oriental Orthodox. Primarily of the Syrian tradition.
Assyrian Church. The Nestorians

RUBBISH .68.153.37]] 19:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most of these present no problem - they are either Catholic, Eastern Orhodox, or Oriental Orthodox. The Syrian churches are either members of Eastern Orthodoxy (The Syrian Orthodox Church), the Catholic Church (the Melkite Catholic Church), or are part of Oriental Orthodoxy. None of those are single words, but they are in general usage in English to describe them. The Thomas Christians are called Malabar Christians or Thomas Christians, who for a very long time had Syrian bishops and were in communion with the Oriental Orthodox. I don't know about the Ti-Ping movement. --MichaelTinkler

I like classifying things into categories when possible. It makes them easier to remember and refer to. Here are some ideas, many of which are probably wrong (or worse, useless):

  • Protestant vs. Catholic
  • Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox. (supposed to comprise the totality of Christianity. Ha.)
  • Christian vs. Heathen
  • Christian vs. Catholic (do Catholics employ this division too?)

Here are some labels, which may or not be useful:

  • Fundamentalist
  • Heretic
  • Cult

Note that many Christian groups do not consider themselves "denominations" although that's a handy way to describe them. --Ed Poor

*Christian vs. Catholic (do Catholics employ this division too?) No, Ed, the narrow-minded among Catholics refer to 'Catholics and non-Christians'. It might be better, rather than making lists, to write entries explaining why people think a 'vs.' is useful. --MichaelTinkler

What we're currently listing as denominations are really categories, types or groups of denominations, not the denominations themselves. The actual number of distinct Protestant denominations runs into the tens of thousands. I'd like to suggest that we call the list here something like "Categories of Denominations" and pretty much leave the list, except maybe delete Free Methodist; it's actually specific. If someone wants to list or create an entry for an actual, specific denomination, it can be listed on the Baptist or Methodist page. If it fits in more than one category, perhaps Baptist and Calvinist, there's no harm in listing both. I just don't think we want the list on this page to risk growing into dozens or hundreds.

So, any strong feelings about what to rename the list? --Wesley

Wesley: I agree, but instead of the terms "categories" or "groups", I'd prefer to say "families of denominations" or "Protestant traditions", or something like that. (Just think it sounds nicer.) -- SJK

"Families of denominations" sounds good to me. I wasn't really comfortable with any of my suggestions, and I'm glad you thought of something better. -- Wesley

I added a brief explanation of various categories of Protestantism that can cross denominational lines. I also added to the list of well-known Protestants, but now I'm wondering if Desmond Tutu should be on the list, because he's technically Anglican. I'm not Catholic, but I too think of most non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians as Protestant, even though that may not be technically correct.

I would say keep Desmond Tutu. John Wesley was an Anglican, but no one really asks whether or not he was a Protestant.  :-)
charleschuck

Not sure about the distinction between mainline (mainstream) protestants and evangelicals. It sounds like you're classifying liberal as mainstream, which is not necessarily representative of protestantism worldwide. In the Anglican communion, for instance, the US Bishops seem more "liberal" than African Bishops.

To my mind there's more of a spectrum:

Liberal.....Evangelical....Fundamentalist

Paul

Perhaps "progressive" would be an acceptable alternative to "mainline" or "liberal"? It doesn't make claims about how widespread or representative it is, and I think it is at least somewhat common among people who hold those sorts of views. Also, I've always heard "mainline" used to describe a denomination, not different points of view within a denomination or a particular group of beliefs. Wesley 16:53 Sep 18, 2002 (UTC)

We should have something on the page on Henry VIII and the Church of England, no?

We should have something, yes! Or maybe, on second thought, that should be developed under the entry on the Reformation?
Added a sentence on the COE, since the Reformation page is still a stub, and England's story is unique and important. - mkmcconn
Sidd Sabtela, decided that there was no sex allowd

It doesn't seem appropriate to put somebody even Google hasn't heard of, under Well known protestants - mkmcconn

Why have the many Wikipedians who write on religion not collected the hundreds of articles on religion on the List of religious topics page? Did the creation of that page escape everyone's notice, or is it just not considered a good idea?

Well, those of us writing on the subject mostly know what the topics are, so that page isn't as useful for us, nor is it controversial, so I guess it tends to get ignored. What exactly is its purpose? Most of the religious articles are heavily cross-referenced, so if someone has a slightly more specific question in mind, can probably find what they want by following links. Haven't looked yet, but I bet they could start at religion and find most related articles. Wesley

Regarding the paragraph on sola scriptura, someone wrote this:

This paragraphed seems a little biased towards the premise that it is a question of who has the authority to interprate scripture, the indiviudual or the church. A better replacement for this would be "Against the Catholic view that faith comes from the teaching of the Church (which the Bible written by the Church is the most excellent example of), Protestants believe that the Bible alone should be looked at for instruction in the faith.

I think I prefer the current paragraph as it is, but that may be because of my own bias in that direction. It seems that while Protestantism does attempt to rely on the Bible alone for instruction in the faith, they also place the privilege and responsibility for interpreting scripture with the individual, according to their understanding of the "priesthood of all believers". Perhaps there's a way to add the above alternative instead of replacing what's there? Wesley 14:11 24 May 2003 (UTC)

The radical individualism that you are talking about is not Protestantism per se, Wesley. Protestantism decides what the matter is, which the Church is given to teach; and that is, the Bible alone. Later movements, within Protestantism, have left all issues of doctrine for the individual to determine, from the Bible alone. The first issue divides Protestants from Roman Catholics. The second issue divides Protestants from one another. Mkmcconn 14:40 24 May 2003 (UTC)
I think that individualism can be easily seen in the Anabaptist movement from the beginning of the Reformation, so it's not just something that came in later. When Martin Luther made his famous "Here I stand" speech, he was standing alone as an individual IIRC. ("Hier stehe ich auf; ich kann nicht anders.") Did the followers of Luther and Calvin follow them because they were individually persuaded that these men were right on many points of doctrine, or because they trusted them as persons to guide them in matters of faith? Did the Lutherans trust Luther's authority in matters of doctrine, or did they trust their own ability to choose between Luther, Calvin, the various Anabaptist leaders or the Roman Catholic Church? And what was the significance of the printing press and native language translations with regard to individualism? The answer isn't going to be the same for everyone; it probably depended on people's class in society, which country they were in and which people and books they were able to hear and read. Wesley 14:51 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Luther was a theologian, as scholar in a religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, who along with many other Catholics of the time made the great mistake of the late Medieval/early Modern period, in believing that it was possible for the Church but not for God to make mistakes. When faced with the difference between what he wrote as a theologian and what the church taught, he confessed his helplessness to intentionally contradict the Scriptures for the sake of agreeing with the Church. This was the same mistake that Galileo made, too. Galileo differed only in that he withdrew his mistake, and repented of having a brain and a conscience. Mkmcconn \
You are correct in identifying the Anabaptist movement as the stream of individualist thinking - although keep in mind that the Anabaptists tended to produce communalism, even at the beginning. The individualism is inherent in their view of the covenant and of baptism as the sign of the covenant. Only individuals, not households, can be added to the church. This view survived in a modified form in Congregationalism, and was restored completely in the Baptist movement. But you see, those who believe this doctrine of a pure church, consisting only of individuals who have had a conversion experience, comprise distinct movements - persecuted movements within Protestantism. In contrast are the Lutherans, who believe in baptismal regeneration, and the Reformed, who believe that the covenant is with believers and their children. Both of the latter established national churches: an impossibility in Anabaptist thinking. Mkmcconn \
It does not help understanding to exaggerate this tendency toward individualism, to make it universally similar among all Protestants. It makes a caricature. To do so renders inexplicable the busy creed-making, the national churches, and the governmental structure of Protestant churches, and the persecution of non-conformists in the early years. You might say that these are indications of inconsistency. Rather, it is a better indication that you have it wrong. The Protestants were not radical individualists, except in those movements which were dedicated to principles of radical individualism. Mkmcconn 22:16 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Luther was certainly an individualist when it came to himself and the interpretation of scripture. He made himself judge of not only the Church but of Scripture itself when he discarded the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament and tried to discard the Epistle of James as well. (Admittedly, he was able to be persuaded to leave it in.) Galileo was at odds with the Church mainly because the Roman Catholic Church had allowed itself to come under the sway of scholasticism, which led to a number of problems, that being one of them. \
It's nearly impossible to say anything about Protestantism and have it apply to all Protestants the same way; there's too much diversity. Yes, the leaders of the national churches did not wish to extend the right to interpret scripture freely to everyone in the church, and did their best to encourage conformity, at least regarding the points they held were most essential. Yet they also each came up with their own creeds; I'm trying to remember if there was ever a schism in church history prior to this that split into more than just two groups. It certainly set the stage to solve disputes through schism, which has led to the growing fragmentation in Protestantism. \
We're probably not going to reach agreement on how best to interpret this stretch of history any time soon. However, I will grant you that the sola scriptura paragraph probably is slanted a bit towards my own POV if it's slanted at all, and I welcome suggestions to correct this. Wesley 13:59 28 May 2003 (UTC)
I really think that you are trying to interpret Protestantism through the lens of Orthodoxy, and it leads you to some awkward conclusions. Maybe if I do the same thing in reverse, you'll see what I mean. Orthodoxy is not monolithic. Not only are the Russians are divided from one another, in the US there is the very odd and Protestant-like freedom of choice between Russians, Antiochans, and Greeks. Besides this, there are Nestorian churches to choose from. And besides that, there are movements within these churches: monaticism, neo-monasticism, Old Calendarists, New Calendarists. There are theologically fundamentalist-like movements, who have very little in common with the broad ecumenists and universalists (some of whom are high-ranking in their own patriarchates). There are socio-political movements: fascisto-nationalists, internationalists and democrats. In every case, if differences like these were to appear within the Protestant world, it would involve moving to a different denomination. Mkmcconn \
The difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is obvious. It is an issue of government. There is absolutely no central authority sufficiently broad enough to embrace all of Protestantism in one institution. We wear our differences on our sleeves, and we all have different definitions for the mental construct that is the "protestant church". That is the historical situation, rather than the Protestant ideal. Mkmcconn \
But these splits and differences are understood in distinctly different ways even within Protestantism - as I said earlier. The Anabaptist movement and its descendants, especially in the British line in the U.S., is self-consciously individualistic. This is their distinctive: individualism and independency, and the concept of the "pure church". It sets them apart from other movements in Protestantism which affirm the authority of the church over the individual. This is objectively the case, so far as principle is concerned regardless of inconcistent expression of that principle in practice. This should be faithfully reflected in all articles treating this issue, in order to avoid caricature. They should not be lumped together, except for polemical purposes: to make anti-protestant arguments designed to convert the anti-individualists to Catholicism, which would not be the stuff of an encyclopedia. Make sense? Mkmcconn 17:59 29 May 2003 (UTC)

First, I certainly acknowledge that Orthodoxy is not monolithic. Among the groups you mentioned are even a few schismatic groups, such as the Nestorians and ROCOR. Orthodoxy and Protestantism differ both in government and in ecclesiology; even here, there is some diversity within Orthodoxy as well as in Protestantism. For what it's worth, I think the jurisdictional problem in North America is on its way towards being resolved, at least among the OCA and the Antiochian and Greek North American arch-dioceses; but of course that doesn't affect your main point. Having acknowledged that, here is what I think is the text in question, regarding Sola Scriptura:

Against the Catholic view which decided orthodoxy by interpretation of the writings of the Fathers and doctors of the church, through the decisions of councils and the declarations of the bishop of Rome, the Protestants argued that the Bible alone is the Word of God, self-interpreting, and the foundation and test of authority for the Church.

How should it be changed to avoid caricature? Should it should be qualified by saying that many Protestants also look to the church fathers without giving them as much weight? Or do you favor the change that was suggested at the beginning of this thread:

Against the Catholic view that faith comes from the teaching of the Church (which the Bible written by the Church is the most excellent example of), Protestants believe that the Bible alone should be looked at for instruction in the faith.

In short, I'd like to return the discussion here to improving the article itself. I'd be glad to continue the discussion on a more general level via email if you like. Wesley 21:02 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I thought that you were contemplating changes to the article, to the effect of your statement:
"It seems that while Protestantism does attempt to rely on the Bible alone for instruction in the faith, they also place the privilege and responsibility for interpreting scripture with the individual, according to their understanding of the "priesthood of all believers"".
I misunderstood what you had in mind to do; and in that case, I've wasted your time and I'm sorry about that. Mkmcconn
I apologize for the misunderstanding as well. Hopefully the person who originally requested the above change will come back and chime in; otherwise, I personally don't see a compelling reason to change it. Wesley


"Against the Catholic view which decided orthodoxy by interpretation of the writings of the Fathers and doctors of the church, through the decisions of councils and the declarations of the bishop of Rome, the Protestants argued that the Bible alone is the Word of God, self-interpreting, and the foundation and test of authority for the Church. How should it be changed to avoid caricature? Should it should be qualified by saying that many Protestants also look to the church fathers without giving them as much weight? Or do you favor the change that was suggested at the beginning of this thread:

Against the Catholic view that faith comes from the teaching of the Church (which the Bible written by the Church is the most excellent example of), Protestants believe that the Bible alone should be looked at for instruction in the faith. "

The reason why I sudgested the first change, was not because of the way it seemed to carictarize Protestants as tottaly ignoring scripture, but rather the wording is of a non-NPOV strawman arguement used commonly against Catholics by Protestants: using the premise that it is taken for granted that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that the argument is over who should interpret it and how. It is the Catholic Church's position that it is nothing should be taken for granted, and that you only know that the Bible is true because the Catholic Church has told you, because it witnessed it first hand and passed that knowledge on. Thus the main issue is belief in the Bible vs. belief in the Church.

"Bible vs Church" doesn't quite give the whole picture. The Protestant belief in the Church is based on the Bible, but the Catholics argue that belief in the Bible is founded on the authority of the Church. Is that what you mean? Mkmcconn \
They are beliefs that are at war here, not the objects of belief. Both believe in the Bible and both believe in the Church - but they are the reverse of one another in belief concerning which is more foundational than the other, and that is what the paragraph should express. Mkmcconn 09:10 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"but the Catholics argue that belief in the Bible is founded on the authority of the Church"

This is true. Catholics believe that the Church (meaning their church, their sucsession of apostles through their bishops headed by their pope), is the infallible teacher. Although not writing the Bible directly, it "canonized", or approved which books are in it, essentially and practically causing its existance as a whole. The Catholic church thinks of itself as basically the author of the Bible. Now Protestants come along and say as their first premise, that the Bible is the only source for faith. They read it and say "look, you catholics are doing the wrong thing, you should believe such and such". But to the Catholics, thats like trying to tell Steinbeck what the REAL meaning of grapes of wrath was. The nature of the strawman argument though, is the protestants saying "look, you catholics and us we agree that the bible is the source of faith (implying here that this is the basic postulate of the faith), show us where in the bible it says the catholic church is the only place that knows the true meaning!". The catholics can try, quoting things like "the church is the pillar of truth", or "upon peter i build my church", etc. but they really can't argue in a completely logical way when they have to accept that premise (catholics usually DO though however, assumming that protestants will not respond in a debate to the denial of the idea that the scriptures in and of themselves are the source of faith (ie. they feel the debate or dialogue would go nowhere if they say "why do you believe in a stupid book for no reason? We wrote the book, get your hands off it, we know what we meant when we wrote it")). Rereading what was originally written, it doesn't sound too bad, although it does seem to subtle infer the strawman paradigm of "catholics believe they should interpret the scriptures, we believe everyone should (again assuming the scriptures in and of themselves in both cases are the foundation).

I wrote a way too long paragraph there ;)


I've tried to understand the points you're making, and I think I'm getting there. If you want to be "fairer" to the catholic position by mentioning the origin as well as the interpretation of scripture, you should probably also add an account of a protestant view of their origins, perhaps along these lines:

Against the Catholic view in which the Church defined the Canon of Scripture and claimed the right and ability to authoritatively interpret it
through the writings of the Fathers and doctors of the church, the decisions of councils and the declarations of the bishop of Rome,
Protestants argued that the early church had simply recognised the inspired Word of God, and that these scriptures are self-interpreting and the sole foundation and test of authority for [the believers who constitute] the church.

Hopefully experts can tell me if I have misrepresented the positions - assuming there is still any need to repoen the issue. If everyone is already happy, my apologies. Paul

without commenting on whether the above is better than what's in the article (which I haven't reviewed), it sounds fine. It just makes me chuckle and wonder why more Protestants don't use the Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas (which were widely circulated in the first couple centuries), or why there is less skepticism of Revelation among Protestants now than there was in the early church. Of course the canon is found in chapter X verses Y-Z! Of a book that we trust because... because... just because! And no, I'm not Roman Catholic. ;-) Wesley 05:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I'm pulling this POV statement about Catholocism to here from the Protestanism page. I'm not sure what to do with it, but I'm convinced it doesn't belong here; it's not about Protestantism:

In fact Catholics offer the highest worship, sacrificial worship, to God by placing themselves at Calvary through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary receive a lower worship that is not sacrificial in character. Protestantism (and Islam) have no sacrificial dimension.

Is there anyone familiar enough with both Protestant and Catholic theology to make any sense of it? Pollinator 03:15, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Catholics do not believe themselves to be worshiping saints is the point here I think. I'll put appropriate language regarding such in the appropraite place in the article.--Samuel J. Howard 03:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok...hoping I haven't stepped on anyone, I reformed :) the description of Sola Christus to its most basic statement of belief. I also tidied Sola Scriptura to clean up the Catholic theology and the protestant response and to remove the limited view of some protestants that scripture is self interpreting. There's a lot in this article that needs going over, as it is a general article on protestantism and it seems to be frequently written from a very limited protestant viewpoint, limited even within conservative protestantism. It also ignores modern developments such as the Catholic Lutheran concordant of grace and phrases thinhs as if they were written by Boettner. Sometimes this has been mitigated by very aggresive Romanization which isn't always entirely correct or is specific to one theological position within Catholicsm--Samuel J. Howard 03:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

While "recent" developments such as the Catholic Lutheran concordat are not representative of the whole of protestantism, and may be seen by some as a "blurring" of traditional Protestant teaching, I'd like to see some further discussion of them. Possibly initially in talk... - Paul 16:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shoot, the Catholic-Lutheran concordat isn't representative of the whole of *Lutheranism*. A blurring of high degree, indeed. --Rekleov 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV concerns

Every biblical reference cited in the Tenets section is for the Catholic position, and the `sola gratia' section contains only one clause on the Reformers' position and two on the RC one! On citing chapter and verse for doctrinal positions, we should either (1) not do it at all, (2) cite the verses Protestants appeal to in the Protestantism entry and cite the verses that Catholics appeal to in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation entries, or (3) we can go whole hog and cite both positions and defenses here as well. I support (2).

This RC-centrism is in amusing evidence in the comment that the "magisterial Reformation" derives its name because the Protestants were objecting to the teachings of the Magisterium! Of course, this etymology is nonsense; 'magisterial' refers to magistrates, not the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church. That the latter was simply assumed is revealing.

I've repaired the 'magisterial' silliness but would be interested in comments before I revise the doctrine section.

AlexKepler 20:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It may be silliness, but I've repeated for years that the first wave of Reformation was called "magisterial" because it was primarily concerned with objections to Catholic teaching that began within the Roman Catholic Church and led to separation from it. Since I still hear this explanation repeated by many Protestants, I think it's a mistake to call it "RC-centrism". Anyway, your take makes much more sense, and is more fully descriptive of the difference between, say, a Lutheran and an Anabaptist: the one magisterial (state-recognized and sponsored), and the other radical. Mkmcconn — 21:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I'm attributing to one brand of silliness what is really rooted in another. :) Good edit, btw. Do you have suggestions on whether or not revising the Tenets section is worthwhile? I'm thinking of moving it closer to the five solas entry, and perhaps adding material on post-Tridentine doctrines.

AlexKepler 22:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My preference is to develop the "five soloas" in separate articles, link here to the summary article (which should remain brief and cursory), and delete the summary descriptions from this article leaving only a list of the five solas. Mkmcconn — 22:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Am I the only one to be uneasy with by the sentence:

"These sundry groupings, i.e. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and other sectarians, are characterized in part by a lack of apostolic succession, in the sense that their founders are not anointed successors of St. Peter"

introduced by 207.192.130.197, along with some traditional Catholic views of Protestant doctrine, later in the article?

We may need a discussion of protestant views of apostolic succession (ranging from reformed rejection of the concept, to qualified high anglican acceptance - amplification welcome here), but a throw-away remark in the introduction is probably not the place. It also sits poorly with the preceding sentence, and its characterisation of protestant groups as "sectarians" is rather tendentious. Indeed it is too fimly rooted in Catholic terminology, assumptions and frames of reference for an article on Protestantism. - Paul 16:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prominent protestants

Is there any rationale for the order of the names? It doesn't seem to be chronological, denominational, or alphabetical (by first or last name). Any preferences? I'd suggest alphabetical, since it's easier... Views, before I jump in? - Paul 16:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Opening statement

"Protestantism in the strict sense of the word is the group of princes and imperial cities who, at the diet of Speyer in 1529, tried a protestation against the Edict of Worms which forbade the Lutheran teachings within the Holy Roman Empire." This is clearly not a correct statement about the current meaning of the word Protestant in English, in a "strict sense" or any other sense. It is a statement about the historical origins of the word. This paragraph should be amended accordingly. Adam 02:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protestant-ism isn't a group either, if it comes to that. -- Paul
Opening statement has been revised, taking into account all the observations from above. --StanZegel 06:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Environmentalism and religion

I have added a section "Environmentalism and religion" to the Environmentalism article. Perhaps someone familiar with Protestant theology could add to it. --Erauch 19:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

I've added a dispute notice, because of the difficulties in the article in the presentation of Catholic theology. This may be a POV dispute as well, and it may be appropraite to make it "totally disputed" instead--Samuel J. Howard 03:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The dispute notice says the article is factually disputed. Could you give any specific examples of bad or wrong facts in the article? Do you think it presents Catholic theology too favorably or too unfavorably? Wesley 05:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subdivisions

The page's opening paragraph stated that Protestantism can be subdivided into "Reformed" and "Restorationist" camps; Methodism is neither. Other groups could make the same claim. I removed this inaccurate sentence. KHM03 22:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Overlap/inconsistency with Protestant Reformation article

Can "1 Definition, 2 Origins of Protestantism & 3 Basic theological tenets" be rationalised with the Protestant Reformation article and the links between the two articles made clear. Paul foord 07:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This issue is still inadequately addressed. The Protestant Reformation article is clearly superior. This one needs to be brought up to that level in the sections you mention, and distinguished in purpose to prevent overlap. When this article has been better developed, some of the material from the Reformation article should be moved here. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dispute???

A dispute was logged on this article over a month ago with no specifics (see above) -- because of supposed "difficulties in the article in the presentation of Catholic theology." I'm new to Wikipedia, but this dispute seems inappropriate, especially since no specifics were identified. The content of the article seems fairly accurate and informative, as well as NPOV, to me. What has to be done to remove the dispute?? Jim Ellis 18:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Ellis; has there been any progress or further complaints? I would move that we remove the disputed tag. KHM03 18:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I've put it back. Catholics consider the Pope an "Apostle from Christ". Come on.--Samuel J. Howard 05:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What specifically needs to be changed to end the dispute? KHM03 10:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Catholics consider the Pope an "Apostle from Christ". Protestants don't!! This article is describing Protestantism -- which involves pointing out fundamental differences with RC. What's your beef?? The statements under "Sola Scriptura" appear factually accurate and NPOV to me. It is not judging, it is stating a fact. Geeez. Jim Ellis 12:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Chris. I am relatively new and inexperienced with Wikipedia. I have previously made changes to this page, especially the sola scriptura section. In fact what is there right now is probably 90 percent my creation, and is the basis for the dispute. I previously (until today) was not a member. I am the one who has made changes being designated "64.66.84.102" and "24.164.213.231". Now I suppose it will just be my name that shows up. Entering into the immediate conversation ... I don't think there is any anti-Catholic bias or any erroneous assertions in the sola scriptura section. Contrasts are necessarily made. And the Pope does consider himself an Apostle, by the way. The major change I made was in April when I attempted to remove what I believed was a Rome-centric attitude in the sola scriptura section. It seemed to misunderstand evangelical/Protestant belief, and described the evangelical/Protestant view in terms of Roman Catholicism. Christopher Erickson

Thanks for joining, Christopher. Welcome. Notice your name shows up in Red because you have not set up a User page. Set one up and you will have a place to receive personal discussion/messages not associated with a particular article page. BTW, regarding the dispute of this article, Mr. Howard should respond to give specifics so we can work this out. Otherwise, in time, we will just remove the dispute message. Notice that KHM03 and I currently agree with you that there is no basis for dispute.
  • I thought I would add my insight here as a Catholic. First of all I want to say that I think this article is NPOV and I don’t find or didn’t find it before too RC-centric. It’s obvious that Protestantism was created in opposition to RC, so there is nothing strange in referring to it. The only thing I wish is that it would be longer so I have it on my watchlist to read more as it progresses. I’ve read your recent discussion and the new description of Sola Scriptura. If I may add my opinion, I think it was better before, when it said that it meant rejection of the Tradition. I think it’s better explained in the separate article Sola Scriptura – Tradition vs. Scripture. As I understand Luther was appalled with the picture of the Church in his times. The thing, which he didn’t like was certainly corruption, which was an unhappy result of the Tradition. The Tradition is much more than official statements of the Church. It’s series of events including Bible but also all Saints, miracles, general beliefs, relicts, papers etc. As RC is not a democratic institution, it’s rather natural that there is a possibility to go the wrong way and I think Luther thought it best to reject the Tradition and go back to the Scripture to avoid all the mistakes of people of his times. While I agree that Protestants reject Papal Infallibility (nothing surprising since they reject the Pope’s office) I think it’s not a good comparison. First of all Papal Infallibility was not yet declared in those times, second, the ex cathedra teachings are extremely rare and used only in very special cases while most of our religion is based on whole Tradition (the ex cathedra teachings are only very small part of it). Moreover the Papal Infallibility is not as bad as one may see it. It’s rather a kind of protection, RC’s way to deal with the same problems, which Luther wanted to solve. First, it may be used in a case of strong disagreement between theologians and preserve the Church from split, second it doesn’t say that a pope is wrong all the time, when he speaks off cathedra, but it also doesn’t say he is right. A pope can be fallible as every man. Also a pope speaking ex cathedra is not infallible as Peter’s successor, but because Holy Spirit speaks through him (Holy Spirit leads the Church not a pope, who is only his spokesman). So, let’s assume a situation when a pope loses his senses and says ex cathedra that all people should be racists. The next pope will be able to easily overturn his words by saying the pope was a heretic and the Infallibility rule does not apply.
I may be wrong but I think that your main concern is to show the differences between our Churches, which were different then than now. I think the sentence: “This does not deny the idea of progressive illumination. Yet it does require that all theological progress be subjected to rigorous biblical approval.” shows very well modern attitude of Protestants to the Tradition.
I want to be clear here, I know very little about Protestantism, all I wrote here is my Catholic view and I don’t claim that I know best. I only thought you might find it useful. I hope it’s ok with you and I wait for your opinions. --SylwiaS 00:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me personally thank you for your comments. You are welcome to make changes as are any of us. We all should strive for factual NPOV in the article. Jim Ellis 01:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The Pope does not consider himself an apostle. The Bishops are, collectively, considered the succesors of the Apostles, but they are not considered Apostles. Hence, we speak of the Apostolic age, which ended when the last of the Apostles died. I'll try to add some more problems with the article tonight.--Samuel J. Howard 03:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you bother doing this, when you might just as easily offer at least a plan of correction? For example, did you notice that the article no longer contains the false assertion that the Pope considers himself an apostle? Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because people asked for examples. So I began providing them. I was trying to justify the inclusion of a notice about the problems with the article until the vast number of problems had been fixed. This was a fairly obvious example of an error.--Samuel J. Howard 17:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Here's another. Catholics do believe in the "priesthood of all believers" so it is at the very least confusing to contrast the Protestant and Catholic views by saying, "Protestants believe everyone is a priest".

In addition, the focus on the "Sola"s presents an extraordinarily fundamentalist view of Protestantism. It may have seemed like a good conceptual framework, but I think it gets hijacked away from it's purpose of a succint presentation of the issues. Furthermore, it removes the argument to the level of sloganeering. Then, an entirely ahistorical modern interpretation of these "reformation slogans" is read back into the reasons for the division of Christendom.--Samuel J. Howard 03:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is hard to over-estimate how much "fundamentalism" has in common with the Reformers, as represented by those "Sola's"
  • Do not suppose that this broad political movement was not frequently driven by sloganeering, at the popular level.
  • Just as simple sloganeering is useful in maintaining the rift between Catholic and Protestant, it was also very clearly useful in creating that rift.
If you do not agree, please support your allegations with proof.
I don't know when these dispute notices started being used, but they are grossly abused in many cases - here, for a very good example. They have a shotgun effect, broadly discrediting an article as "totally disputed", when there are only particular points with which an individual editor is in disagreement, without even an attempt to fix it. Instead of defacing the article with banners advertising your disagreement, what is the reason for not encouraging the edits you propose? I've not observed anyone resisting these recommendations, if you're too busy to make the changes yourself. Where is the "dispute"? Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, look at the edits that I've made in the attempt to incorporate your observations and suggestions. If you find something objectionable, please work with me and other willing participants, to find a reasonable way to reconcile the difference of approach, and to improve the accuracy of the article. Until we meet a wall, or the page settles into stagnant state of dispute, please do not plaster complaint notices on the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't realize that suggesting I was or was approaching being a vandal as you did is just about the worst insult you can offer on Wikipedia. This for suggesting that there were factual and POV problems with the article, which by your revisions you have agreed there were.--Samuel J. Howard 17:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've been around long enough to know what I am saying, yes; just as I assume you know what you meant when you made the same suggestion about me, in return. I addressed every one of the concerns you listed on this page, before I removed the "disputed" notice. When you posted more reasons, I made more changes. The notice did not accomplish this collaboration (quite the contrary, it irritated me, and tempted me to distrust your intentions) Rather, your request for changes accomplished this. Thank you for pointing out the weaknesses of the article, and for not continuing to replace the dispute notice. In my opinion, your recommendations assisted in greatly improving the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • “Protestants believe everyone is a priest” I cannot find anything confusing in this. According to the Catholic Catechism Christian faithful “have become sharers in Christ's priestly” but it certainly doesn’t mean they are all priests. I read an article about Protestantism written by a Polish Catholic theologian and he uses exactly the same sentence to explain differences between Protestants and Catholics. It shows the Protestants’ individuality. To become a Catholic priest one needs to receive a sacrament. Surely no Catholic, who didn’t receive the sacrament considers himself a priest. I too think that there is no need for the “dispute notice” and things should be discussed before grave changes are made. This is a good article and it would be sad if it lost it’s main purpose, which I think is showing what Protestants believe in. --SylwiaS 05:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As for the "everyone a priest" discussion --- the Protestant view ought to be nuanced a bit, explaining by this (in other terms, more than likely) that what is meant by this is that no mediator is necessary between God and the believer in order for the believer to speak to God. This is not a matter of office, but of relation. Thus much of the confusion and cross-talk when Protestants and Catholics use these terms when speaking with each other --- translation work has not been done.
On a side note, it seems to me that many times when a "dispute" notice is placed on an article, the person placing it is simply whining that their group/POV is not being represented in glowing terms, but rather simply stated. Is there a mechanism for cutting out disputes when they are nothing but whining? --Rekleov 15:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes. If the person continues to do this, it is nothing more than defacing the page with official-looking graffiti. After sufficient warning and negotiation, it should be reported as vandalism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with SylwiaS. A dispute notice is premature. Something widely believed by European Catholics should be included, albeit with a possible counter point or more explanation about what is meant by priest. -JCarriker 13:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
"The priesthood of all believers" is certainly one of the ideas that excited the rebellion against the Catholic hierarchy, eliminated the idea of a special hierarchy of priests from almost all Protestant churches, and in the extreme eventually led to the elimination of any class of professional clergy. I wouldn't be too concerned that this will not be part of this article. It belongs there, without dispute. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."73 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."74 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.(italics in the original)" --Catechism of the Catholic Church
So it needs to be explained otherwise than that Catholics don't believe in the "priesthood of all believers".--Samuel J. Howard 18:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Very well cited. We should very carefully avoid misrepresenting the Catholic view, based on this official document of the Catholic Church's faith. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Priesthood

I think we may say that: “Protestants believe everyone is a priest while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the hierarchical priesthood” or “according to the Roman Catholic Church only the ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ builds up and leads his Church”.

For Catholic Church priests are only the ordained people, even deacons are not priests, so we certainly cannot say that everyone is a priest. The words priest and priesthood have different connotations. Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a feeling that as you think that it’s better that everyone is a priest, you are afraid to say that for Catholics it’s different not to diminish Catholic religion. But we know it’s different and we like it this way, so there’s nothing wrong in noticing the differences.

Here are relevant fragments from Catechism (please, read ESP the last paragraph):

The priesthood of the Old Covenant 1539 The chosen people was constituted by God as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance. A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are "appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer,9 this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.

The one priesthood of Christ 1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ 1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm#1546 --SylwiaS 15:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am disputing the article. The dispute is a fact. The abuse is the repeated removal of the notice. Yes, a dispute notice discredits the article. That is entirely correct, as the article is not creditable, but contains factual innacuracies. More important than the reputation of the article, however, is the reputation of the Wikipedia as a whole. That is damaged when there is an article with factual innacuracies that is not flagged as having such. If there are substantial factual problems, the article should be flagged until they are fixed.--Samuel J. Howard 16:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Putting up "disputed" notices, without even attempting to work through the differences, is a wrong use of these notices - or clearly, there would be a dispute notice on every article on Wikipedia that deals with a controversial subject. Face that fact.
  • Do not exaggerate the importance of "the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole" unless the article is being represented as "complete" - that is, ready for peer review for consideration as a feature article; or more to the point, do not exaggerate the importance of your disagreement. Make your case, participate in the process. Do not declare the process broken until it is prematurely declared complete - in which case, advertise your request for help to pull the article out of the mud, but posting a "disputed" notice.
  • Fix the factual inaccuracies, gripe about them if that's all you have time for, but do not declare your gripe unanswered until people refuse to answer them. This is simple common sense, and certainly good etiquette.
If there is a substantial factual problem, display the problem long before you make a display out of your disagreement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are never complete. Featured articles are featured not done. I didn't declare the process broken. I used the process. You, otoh, have made all sorts of dispariging remarks towards me. There have been radical changes to the article and it's presentation of the topic since I started putting disputed notices on it. That was the idea.
  • Displaying the problem is exactly displaying a disagreement. The dispute notices are there to display the problems as a waring to users. A warning to which they are entitled. It is also a form of participation in the process.

--Samuel J. Howard 17:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

    • Where is my "disparaging remark" ? I want to explain my disagreement clearly, even aggressively, but not disrespectfully. Explain how I have offended, and I will work with you to correct what I have done to you.
    • Display the problem: explain what you want to have changed. Display your disagreement: posting "disputed" notices without the attempt to work through what you want changed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

End of Dispute Offer

When I first read the article it was because I wanted to learn more about Protestantism. Not what other Churches think about Protestantism, but what Protestants think and believe in. The article was very informative and it gave me good insight on Protestants' view. I don't think and never thought that the article was POV. I also think it should be much more subjective than it is now. There is no objectiveness in religions and no one should expect otherwise. I agree that there are some incorrectness, but deleting them only spoils the article. My proposition is to revert the article to it's richest form and list the things, which are incorrect. They can be easily changed. If there was a bad definition of a pope, it can be changed with just couple words, but the fact that Protestants reject the pope remains and it's the most important here. I know, who my pope is, what I want to learn here, is what the Protestants think. I want to thank Jim Ellis for encouragement, but I would never dare to change an article, which doesn't concern my religion. Therefore, I would like to encourage Samuel and all the others, who may find some things in the article disputable to list them here and give their suggestions of changes. I will be glad to also join in providing correct definitions. I understand that what we consider incorrect refers only to Catholic religion. We may come to an agreement here and then the particular sentences may be changed. I believe that everyone here would like to see the article correct, but still I don't think the "dispute notice" is necessary. I read yesterday couple articles about Infallibility and I also think they are not perfectly correct, but they are not disputed. --SylwiaS 16:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not revert the article. The previous, disputed version is still there in the history, to draw from. Use it to add in those parts that you believe to be valuable. You will not get far trying to make a Wikipedia article more subjective, however. This violates the NPOV guidelines, explicitly. You advise being more cautious and conservative about making changes. I would strongly advise you to be more bold. I am a Protestant. I emphatically want knowledgeable Catholics to edit this article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, bad wording, I didn’t mean to revert “literally”. I also want to explain, what I meant by more subjective view. I didn’t mean encouraging POV view, which I would consider judging in this case. I only meant that when there were more comparisons between Protestantism and RC the issue of the article was easier to understand for a non-Protestant. I don’t think that comparisons are bad if they show only differences without tending to supremacy, which I think was the case here. I have also a question. I’ve noticed there are no Bonhoeffer’s pictures attached to his article. As in April there was 60th anniversary of his death, there are now many articles about him on Polish internet sites including his pictures. As well as sites devoted to all the three great religions together as separate Lutheran and Catholic sites use the same pictures. There is no information about copyrights attached and since they were made before or during WWII, it’s possible that the authors are unknown. Does it mean that I can put the pictures here? I’m new in Wikipedia, so I have no practice. --SylwiaS 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • If you cannot find out who owns the copyright, or whether the work is not copyrighted, it should not be posted. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dispute specified

"Protestants are often considered to be another people "of the book", in that they adhere to the text of the Bible,"

Either this implies that non-protestant christians are not people of the book, or it ignores the fact that the "book" in question is revered by both protestants and other christians. The phrase was either coined or at least greatly popularized by Muhammed and islamic learning. Therefore, it could not have referred to protestants to the exclusion of Catholics in its early application since protestants did not at the time exist. So this doesn't make any sense.

I agree. Idiosynctratic language. Mkmcconn (Talk)
Moreover, it is not descriptive of all of Protestantism-in-the-present-tense. It may not be reliably said that, they "adhere to the text of the Bible." Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was ok with me. Maybe the word “book” is just no the best (my Lutheran friend suggested “message”) but still for Protestants the Bible plays bigger role than for Catholics. Also in everyday life we don’t quote the Bible so often and we certainly don’t have to refer to it in theological aspects. The Polish theologian I mentioned before also suggested that the importance of Bible for Protestants influenced the intellectual aspect of their religion. E.g. for Protestants the “word” meaning sermon and rational reasoning is the most important aspect during a mass, while for Orthodox it would be singing and for Catholics the Holy Communion. So maybe it would be better to develop it showing also present attitude of Protestants to the Bible. --SylwiaS 22:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"People of the book" expresses the islamic perspective, according to which Christians are treated differently than pagans. Accordingly, Muslims are also "people of the book". This introduces, by implication, a controversy that has no place in this article. Mkmcconn (Talk)

Yes, I understand that it may be seen as a controversy, but I didn’t see it before reading the article as a text about Protestantism. --SylwiaS 00:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not see any reason why the Bible should not be quoted by a Catholic or Orthodox just as often as by a Protestant. It is, after all, supreme within Holy Tradition. But yes, Protestantism typically places much greater emphasis on the sermon than on the liturgy - especially among the descendents of the Puritans. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That’s exactly the case. It’s not supreme for us but equal. It may be quoted of course, but in practice the Protestants read and quote the Bible much more often. It’s ok to be a Catholic and not to read the Bible at all. In practice one can take all the knowledge only from parts of it or priest’s or parents’ words, which may refer as well to the Bible as to e.g. lives of saints. A Catholic may also not be interested in all the things at all and only live in an agreement with the Decalogue and Church’s commandments, which mainly say that a Catholic has to attend the masses and receive a Holy Communion once a year on Eastern. So the emphasis for us is put elsewhere. I’ll give you also another example, when the Protestant reformation started many Polish nobles turned to Calvinism, while almost all peasants remained Catholics. Since people couldn’t read and the masses were in Latin they didn’t really care too much about understanding the faith and they didn’t need to. Also the church liked keeping the precious knowledge to itself. Of course it looks much different today, but we all know, what those times looked like. Today church cares about teaching but still it’s not necessary the Bible. To receive the first communion one must know only some things and many of them don’t come from the Bible. Before receiving the marriage sacrament, one will be taught mostly the church’s view on marriage, but it isn’t supported by the Bible only as well. Then for Catholics the Protestants are people who read the Bible. --SylwiaS 01:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I certainly don't want to be presumptuous about this, but I am under the strong impression that you are over-simplifying what is taught by the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that the Bible is uniquely The Word of God, the inspired Word of God; and as God's word, it must have prominence in the life of Church, and therefore also in the life of the individual Christian. The Church has never said about any other writing or formal document of the Faith, not the decisions of councils, and not the declarations of popes, that they are in this sense the inspired word of God. However, in contrast to Protestantism, Catholics teach that the Word of God is only correctly understood in the context of the Faith of the Church, handed down by tradition from the Apostles - that is, Catholic tradition of which the Pope is regarded the chief steward on earth. According to Catholicism - forgive me if I'm garbling things here - there is no equality between Tradition and Scripture. Rather, there is an inseparability of tradition from a faithful interpretation of Scriptures. That is, the Bible is not meant to be understood apart from the gift of faith, apart from the Church. I'm not doubting, though, that there are many Traditional beliefs and practices that have no basis in Scripture. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was late, when I was writing that and it seems I put too big effort on showing the contrast by description, instead of citing sources. Here’s from our Catechism:

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Link to the above: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#81

Only traditions of local churches are not part of the Holy Tradition until Vatican decides otherwise. We don’t think that the Scripture is the only written proof of God’s deeds on Earth, because we believe that he is still present and active then the miracles are his deeds as well. I’m not saying that the Bible is not important, but the balance is different. I think we may add to the definition of Sola Scriptura that according to the Roman Catholic Church Tradition holds equal authority to Holy Scripture and link to the wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition#Traditionalism --SylwiaS 13:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I've missed the mark in what I said above. The sources you quote indicate that there is a distinction between "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.", and Holy Tradition. It does not appear to be Catholic teaching that they are "equal" to one another (so that without one, you still have something of equivalent value if you have the other). Rather, the sense seems to be, if you neglect the Scriptures, you are contradicting Holy Tradition: "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence", because "both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Conversely, it appears that the sense is, rejection of Holy Tradition is denial of that very authority through which the Scriptures were given, in its living expression. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, I absolutely didn’t mean that they are equivalent. They also cannot oppose each other. By equal I mean they are of the same importance and value. The Bible isn’t supreme over the Tradition. The Tradition develops but is not more important than the Scripture. The Scripture cannot contradict the Tradition, without the Tradition one is not able to read the Scripture properly. Both describe our faith, not only Scripture and according to Catholics referring only to Scripture without Tradition gives false picture. The RC encourage reading the Bible but not without referring to the Tradition. The Tradition can be properly understood only by Apostles’ successors with assistance of Holy Spirit and doesn’t have to refer to the Bible. Also “The New Testament demonstrates the process of living Tradition” as it was written later.
I don’t insist that it should be written in the article that “Protestants are people of the Book” if for the reasons mentioned earlier you think it incorrect or confusing. But I think that in Sola Scriptura it should be noted that it means rejection of the Tradition. Also Tradition with capitalized “T” means the Divine Tradition while tradition means various other traditions, which may be modified or abandoned in the light of Tradition, so it should be changed. BTW pls read also about priesthood in the "Dispute??" thread. --SylwiaS 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


One more thing. Maybe the most important, after all it’s all about salvation. I think that since Luther wanted to make the church better and less dependable on priests, he wanted to teach people, how to take the decisions personally. To achieve it, they had to learn, how to understand their faith. Sola Fide - if it’s the only reason for salvation, Protestants have to understand it. A Catholic doesn’t. One may, if he likes, find the theology very intellectual activity, but generally it’s enough to believe, one doesn’t have to understand and know the reasons. If you think about films showing Latino Americans i.e. “Romeo and Juliet” with Leonardo DiCaprio, there is difficult to see a Bible there, instead there are everywhere pictures of Divine Mercy of Jesus Christ - a heart with rays. The cult of it comes solely from the Tradition. In 1931 Jesus showed himself to a Polish nun Faustyna Kowalska. Anyhow, since we have the purgatory and in no way the church promises salvation to Catholics, the Divine Mercy is our main hope for ever going to Heaven. Another very important cult is Mother Mary, half of our prayers are to her. Still not even close to the Bible. Bibles in every hotel room is the Protestant custom, the Catholic would be rather a picture of Christ or Mother Mary. In fact, the differences between the two religions are much bigger than people usually think. Since Protestants don’t have the Tradition, it’s difficult for them to see, how big the differences are. From the other hand, as Catholics cannot really tell the difference between the Bible and the Tradition without longer thinking, they assume that Protestants have many things which they don’t. I assure you that many Catholics don’t really know that Protestants don’t have the cult of Mary, it’s just too natural for us, as well as they don’t have to know, that the cult of Mary comes from the Tradition, not from the Bible. --SylwiaS 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Again, I don't want to be presumptuous, but besides the development of the tradition of the cult and legends of Mary, there is a sophisticated development of a tradition of Biblical theology of Mary. You might be interested in reading Jaroslav Pelikan's "Mary through the Ages", to see what I'm talking about. While the legends and cult have scant place in Protestantism, the Biblical/Redemptive-history reasons for Mary's significance are interesting to many. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems the book is not yet available in Poland, but I hope our Orthodox Church will publish it soon. I gave the example with Mary especially as it partly derives from the Bible and many religions have different approach to her. It’s also significant that cult of Mary is different in various countries (e.g. she is called the Queen of Poland-Lithuania since 17th century, but also there is the French Lady of Lourdes, Lady of Fatima, Queen of Ireland and many others) while the official place in the Tradition was given her in 19 and 20c --SylwiaS 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The "present attitude of Protestants to the Bible" is going to be hard to succinctly encompass, or to accurately describe. Large swaths of Protestants have embraced a view of personal revelation, which radically conflicts with "sola scriptura". Large groups also denounce particular elements of the Bible, as antiquated, even barbaric and wrong for modern times. It would be good to try to do it, but it will be a difficult thing to accomplish. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"priestly caste"

use of "caste" in this way is derogatory. Priests do not constitute a caste in the literal sense anyways.

Agree. Prejudicial Mkmcconn (Talk)

"In a broader sense of the word, Protestantism is the collective name for numerous denominations of Western European origin, that broke with the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the influence of Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran churches, and John Calvin, one of the founders of the Reformed movement."

Factually innacurate. There are denominations, such as the protestant American Episcopal Church and the Methodist church that were not begun as a result of the influence of Luter or Calvin (or Zwingli), but for political reasons and later from that Church which had been founded for political reasons or which later broke off from the Anglican Church which had been founded for political reasons, therefore not founded by splitting with the Catholic Church.

This can be improved. "Protestant" began to be used as the collective name ... Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"the great dissemination of protestant beliefs occurred with the translation of the Bible by Protestants 
into native tongues from Latin, Greek and Hebrew and their quick spread with the help of the new technology 
of the printing press."

Wrong on basic facts and their interpretation. Implies Bible was not previously translated into vernaculars.

See: http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1270 (and that's just English, and also leaves aside that Latin was a vernacular translation when first made).

Here's more:

"The first book that issued from the press was the Latin Bible (popularly known as the Mazarin Bible), published by Fust and Gutenberg in 1456. For the Latin Bible (the form in which the Scriptures had hitherto been mainly known in Western Europe) there was indeed so great a demand, that no less than 124 editions of it are said to have been issued before the end of the fifteenth century; but it was only slowly that scholars realized the importance of utilizing the printing press for the circulation of the Scriptures, either in their original tongues, or in the vernaculars of Europe. The Hebrew Psalter was printed in 1477, the complete Old Testament in 1488. The Greek Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, was included in the great Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, printed in 1514-17, but not published till 1522. The Greek New Testament (edited by Erasmus) was first published by Froben in 1516, the Old Testament by the Aldine press in 1518. In the way of vernacular versions, a French Bible was printed at Lyons about 1478, and another about 1487; a Spanish Pentateuch was printed (by Jews) in 1497; a German Bible was printed at Strassburg by Mentelin in 1466, and was followed by eighteen others (besides many Psalters and other separate books) between that date and 1522, when the first portion of Luther's translation appeared. In England, Caxton inserted the main part of the Old Testament narrative in his translation of the Golden Legend (which in its original form already contained the Gospel story), published in 1483; but no regular English version of the Bible was printed until 1525, with which date a new chapter in the history of the English Bible begins."

from: http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif3.html

So we have a number of printed vernacular Bibles before the reformation begins.

The way this is put suggests, in a NPOV way, that the very fact of the translation of the scriptures caused protestant belief to spread. Certainly this is not the case in the consideration of any protestant orthodoxy. It is more accurate to say that the spread of Protestant beliefs occured with the propogation of vernacular translations reflecting Protestant interpretations and commentary. (Not to mention protestant works of theology.)

This is clumsy language, that will take a little work to fix. Let's do so. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please review, and comment on whether the issue concerning vernacular translations, and the use of the printing press, should be further explained. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and suggest a return to the simplicity of the Gospel"

assumes Catholic doctrine does not reflect the "simplicity of the Gospel". Even with the addition of "percieved difference", still implies that Protestant theology is somehow simpler than Catholic theology. Something without foundation in the article and highly debatable.

Of course it "assumes" this. It describes the Protestant position. How can this be disputed? Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It’s true. Warsaw Catholic Theology University explains to their students that since the role of priests was to be diminished there was a need to make the Protestant theology understandable for everyone. It’s absolutely not the case in RC, even John Paul II, when asked difficult theology question used to say: I don’t know, go to Ratzinger. We have all the monks and bishops to study it for us, and still they don’t know everything. 2000 years of Tradition to learn after all. --SylwiaS 23:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"From the beginning, Protestantism was in agreement against the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine used in the sacrificial rite of the Mass is transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (see Eucharist). However, they disagreed with one another either concerning the manner in which Christ is present in Holy Communion."

Generally, "in agreement", I think not! Of course, some do hold this view, (certain High Anglicans, for instance), so it would be wrong to say that they disagree with it too.

"Generally in agreement" is certainly the truth. Anglicans are an odd case out, such that the controversy which began against Rome was not completed in the British Isles until the Puritan reformation of the following century: Presbyterians, Separating and non-separating congregationalists, Baptists, etc., being part of that story. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
this one's my mistake in misreading. withdrawn.--Samuel J. Howard 17:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Lutherans hold to an understanding closest to that of Real Presence (often misidentified as consubstantiation), which affirms the true presence of Christ "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. Lutherans point to Jesus' statement, "This is my body", while refusing to delve past Christ's words in order to describe just how this takes place. Lutheran teaching does, however, insist that Christ is present physically, rather than in a purely "spiritual" sense."

It seems wrong to say "misidentified" clearly Lutherans argue that Jesus is "with" the Bread and Wine, hence in he is consubstantially there whether they prefer that term or not. Certainly I agree that it is anachronistic to describe the Lutheran view as "Consubstantiation", but it is also wrong to say that this is a misidentification.

I agree - but I am not Lutheran. Aparently there is subtlety here that I do not yet appreciate, and would like the help of a Lutheran who agrees that "consubstantiation" is misapplied to Lutheranism, to explain. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don’t understand the anachronism of the word “consubstantiation”, but as I know the Lutheran view here is the closest to Catholic with two differences, first, they don’t see it as a sacrifice, second the change lasts only during the rite. For Catholics once the change is made it’s for ever. The bread, now body of Christ is held in “tabernaculum”, which is placed in the back of the altar. That’s why Catholics have to knee and make the sing of cross every time they pass the middle of a church. See also http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Lord%27s%20Supper --SylwiaS 00:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"A Protestant holding a popular corruption of the Zwinglian view"

Not NPOV, pro-Zwinglian to suggest that a view contrary to the Zwinglian is a "corruption".

Agree, but the the sentence already has been changed: "popular simplification". Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Within the Roman Catholic Church, this debate was officially concluded by the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which executed Jan Hus even though he had come under a promise of safe-conduct, "

Implies mendacity on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities. Truth is more ambigious as the article on Jan Hus notes:

"Sigismund promised him safe-conduct, guaranteeing his safety for the duration of his journey; as a secular ruler he would not have been able to make any guarantees for the safety of Hus in a Papal court, but this was probably not made sufficiently clear."

"16th century

   * Martin Luther, 16th Century
   * John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli, 16th Century
   * Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation with an emphasis on Millenarianism, 16th Century"

What happened to the protestant reformation in England?

"The Methodist movement in the 17th and the 18th centuries"

Methodists in the 17th century?

Pietists added in later edit & section edited Paul foord 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Evangelicalism 18th Century"

Nope, that'd be the 19th century, see Evangelicism:
article Evangelicalism includes Great Awakening 18c stands Paul foord 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good points, all. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that the restructuring helps, with these concerns, and provides a platform for expansion. What about Modernism? Theological liberalism has had at least as pervasive and abiding an impact on Protestantism today, as anything else listed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In 1846, eight hundred Christians from ten countries met in London and set up the Evangelical Alliance. They saw this as "a new thing in church history, a definite organization for the expression of unity amongst Christian individuals belonging to different churches." However, the Alliance floundered on the issue of slavery. Despite this difficulty it provided a strong impetus for the establishment of national and regional evangelical fellowships."

"Fundamentalism 20th Century

"See main article Fundamentalism

"In reaction to liberal Bible critique, Fundamentalism arose in the 20th century"

This one is possibly too late. Though the name came later, fundamentalism arguably begins in the late 19th century among evangelicals as a reaction to modernism. See Fundamentalism and also: http://logosresourcepages.org/Positions/timothy_5.htm.

your reference seems to indicate 1900 as a reasonable start date Paul foord 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ecumenism mid 20th Century

"See main article Christian ecumenism

"The ecumenical movement has had an influence on mainline churches, beginning at least in 1910 with the Edinburgh Missionary Conference."

Contradicts itself. Mid-twentieth or early twentieth?
Changed to 20c Paul foord 18:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and some are so unorthodox as to be questioned by most"

Questionably NPOV.

How about "the beliefs of some are so unusual that their orthodoxy is questioned by most."

"So unusual" is not NPOV. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005

(UTC)

Removed the offending bit from the sentence. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Samuel J. Howard 17:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Radical Reformation

There is a new page for this topic which could use expansion by someone with expertise in that area. KHM03 11:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lord's Supper

This is a judgement A Protestant holding a popular corruption of the Zwinglian view, not NPOV better A Protestant holding an extreme position, not sure how to reference Paul foord 16:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Changed. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - good Paul foord 17:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basic theological tenets (refers Dispute)

The five solas are not the total of the reformers tenets. This part needs expansion and that may mitigate the dispute issue /balance is wrong at present/ - I put in a sub-heading. Can someone look at other theological issues of importance. The Real Presence (not Lords Supper can be another) maybe ordination/holy orders. Do we need something about practices to pick up other aspects. Paul foord 17:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If balance is the issue, then the article is "incomplete" not "wrong". If it is right as far as it goes, but needs to be expanded on some point, then that is the very reason we are here. Let's expand it, accurately, for completeness' sake. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
balance wrong=out of balance
So adding more weight can redress this Paul foord 17:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section placement

Please help me to understand why the "Theological tenets" section should be moved prior to the history. Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before or after history/development not an issue for me. Earlier edit placed it between 16c and 17-20c, and affected heading arrangements. 16-20c need to be together (maybe 21c). I edited text 14c-20c to maintain integrity but think 17c-20c too narrow (these not only things that happened). Paul foord 17:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, I do not understand your terminology, here. Can the sections dealing with theological tenets, and internal theological disputes, be moved below the sections reagarding history/development? Mkmcconn (Talk) 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Before or after history/development not an issue for me. means YES Paul foord 17:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But 3.4 Methodist movement and Pietism 17th Century - 18th century 3.5 Evangelicalism 18th Century 3.6 Pentecostalism 20th Century 3.7 Fundamentalism 20th Century 3.8 Neo-evangelicalism mid 20th Century 3.9 Ecumenism mid 20th Century are not Theological tenets Paul foord 18:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New section added, called ==Later developments== Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paul foord, Puritan Movement late 16th century - early 18th century appears to belong under the Reformation in England. Do you agree? Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem that we would face if we put the "theology" below the later developments, is that the issues raised here gradually become less true of all the groups included. With the present arrangement, it is possible to explain how later Protestantism departed from early Protestantism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Puritan Movement does belong under English Reformation, but might need to look at later period separately.
Theology before movements is appropriate
Maybe merge movements into Protestant families of denominations would be a better arrangement

Paul foord 03:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)