Any religion that comes from a reformative breakaway is almost always going to be more "strict" at the get-go than the faith it's breaking away from. So of course the newer ones are more strict - they are breaking away over something that has "gone morally wrong". Rarely is that breakaway because the church has gotten too conservative.
I guess that's where it's backwards in my head. I feel as a society we've become more socially progessive and I would think churches would reflect that. And by progressive I mean that while 150 years ago it was the norm for a church to teach that women should not be educated or work but to stay home with kids, today you are less likely to find belief even among the religious conservative. You've got to dig deep into the evangelicals/fundies to get into that mentality. So I would have thought that as churches break away and reform, that they would reform into more liberal territory but it seems to be the opposite.
Also, for some reason I assumed the more liberal churches like the Episcopals and ELCA Lutherans were always liberals but I'm wondering if that's not the case. That the Episcopals of yore are what the Fundies are today. And as these Protestant churches got away from their roots and became more liberal, that caused a need for the non-denominational and evangelical churches.
I know around here and in Florida, any new church that sprouted up was generally a very evangelical church. If you wanted a more progressive/liberal church that say welcomed gay people, you'd find a church that was around for the last 100 years. The new church in the local high school or movie theater, while very charismatic in their service, was very fundie in their teachings.
If my posts sound rambly it's because I'm writing out loud. This is a topic I happen to love learning about.
I'm pretty sure the original Episcopals/Lutherans weren't liberal per se. It should be easy enough to google the history of doctrines of both churches.
I think it depends on who you talk to. On religious forums, the question "Are Episcopals Catholic or Protestant" will spawn lengthy debates and very long answers. The only answer that seems to satisfy the masses is giving Anglicans their own category. Some people will say there are three types of Catholics: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopal. Other people will say that while Episcopals aren't Catholics, they aren't Protestant either. They feel Christianity should be broken down into Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and everyone else. For me, I really don't care what label it has. But it's just one of those things that I guess are an issue with some people. The best description I've heard came from Robin Williams "All of the pleasure, half the guilt." I hope I don't offend any Catholics. It's meant to be light hearted. My very Catholic dad laughed.
This is not to you, but to those who take issue. They may want to think they're not Protestants, but they are. That's a fact that can't be wanked around due to discomfort with the term!
And Orthodox are not Catholic are not Episcopalians.
Yeah after reading more I have no idea why so many would not want the Protestant label. I mean, you'd think they'd be all, "Heck yeah we started the whole reformation". I don't know. According to Wikipedia there are 7 denominations that are considered Protestant.
I don't know the order which they were formed other than #1 Episcopal and #2 Lutheran (I think). So the timeline would be Catholic>Orthodox>all 7 Protestants> Mennonites and Quakers? >non-denominational> ?
I agree that liberal or progressive isn't quite the way to sum up the flow of new groups but I totally see why one would assume that. It seems that each group was trying to remove from their religion what they considered to be false or unnecessary or corrupt, and add what they thought was missing or beneficial. Ofcourse there were outside pressures that made them conform or segregate themselves too, at times. What's funny is how so many of these groups today have so much more in common than they have differences. You start to wonder how many of them even notice outside of little traditions here and there.
Fantastic chart 2Vermont! Okay I need to study this. Already I see a couple that I've never heard of like Vineyard Churches and Willow Creek. And color me stupid but I didn't realize Salvation Army was a church.
They are missing the non-denominational and fundie churches though. I guess they would break off from the Evangelical Free?
Fantastic chart 2Vermont! Okay I need to study this. Already I see a couple that I've never heard of like Vineyard Churches and Willow Creek. And color me stupid but I didn't realize Salvation Army was a church.
They are missing the non-denominational and fundie churches though. I guess they would break off from the Evangelical Free?
Well, I don't know how accurate it all is, but it was the best one I could find (and there wasn't many out there).
I also have no idea what those two churches are, but I think your assumption about ND and Evangelical is probably on the mark.
What's funny is how so many of these groups today have so much more in common than they have differences. You start to wonder how many of them even notice outside of little traditions here and there.
If I had to guess, I think a lot of it boils down to the type of service they have, charismatic vs solemn, speaking in tongues or not, hand clapping or not. Also, are they more focused on New Testament vs Old. I read that Church of Christ (not to be confused with United Church of Christ) don't follow the OT at all. They only follow the NT. Also, silly as it sounds, instruments make a difference to some people like me. I wanted to hear an old school pipe organ in service. Our church also has a Celtic service where they play violins, flutes and harps. Where some people prefer more modern like electric guitar and drums.So I think that's why there are so many denominations that seem similar. OR it could be simply that each one thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong, lol.
Popping in to say the Renaissance was not such a liberal time for the Church. See, for example, Antonio Rinaldeschi, who was executed in Florence in 1502 for throwing dung at a fresco of the Virgin Mary. But if you mean "liberal" in that lots of popes had kids and were running around poisoning people, buying elephants, and painting little boys with gold paint, point taken.
I'm going to need a little bit more info on this last bit.
Leo X had a pet elephant named Hanno, and painted a little Florentine boy in gold as part of a crazy party. The boy died. So did Hanno after two years. And Leo was pope when Luther started the Reformation.
Ok, so "strict" here has more to do with the teachings on sexual morality.
I think a major inaccuracy in your conclusion wrt less strict to more strict is that you are characterizing these Protestant denominations based upon what they teach today. For example, the Church of England was quite strict in these matters when it first chose to break away from the Catholic Church (well, except for divorce, of course). It is over (a lot of) time that they have changed their teachings in the other matters you have mentioned.
I think that some of the more recent denominations came about to counter the more liberal stances of these other churches over time. In other words, these recent denominations thought that the (now) liberal churches went too far in changing Christianity. If I'm not mistaken this happened in Judaism as well. IIRC, Hasidism was a response to the other branches of Judaism going too far liberal/reformed. Maybe MrD or some of the other Jewish posters can confirm, clarify or tell me I'm completely wrong about that...lol.
Actually the Church of England was strict on divorce until the 60s divorce wasn't recognized. Henry VIII wanted an annulment and that's what he got it was just referred to as a divorce. But it was actually dissolved on grounds of being too closely related to we'd since Catherine was his brother's widow.
Martin Luther is generally credited with being the father of the Reformation, as he posted the 95 Theses against the Catholic Church at the cathedral in Wittenburg in 1517. The Church of England did not separate from the Roman Catholic Church until 1534, when Henry VIII wanted to get rid of Catherine of Aragon and put it to Anne Boleyn instead.
This is true. Even then, Henry wanted a Catholic church with no papal authority and no wealth. It seems to me that he originally started taking the church lands and such as punishment for not supporting them but once he saw how much they were sitting on, he wanted it all.
It was Henry's son Edward who really pushed the Protestant cause. Between Henry's last wife Katherine Parr, the brother of Henry's second wife what's his face Seymour and the other Seymour who married Katherine Parr but spent hid time trying to get in Elizabeth's underaged skirts, Edward was pretty much raised Protestant and was quite a staunch believer despite his young age.
Sydney, at the risk of sounding like a dick, if you're genuinely interested in the topic, you really should think about picking up some books. The bulk of what you've said in this thread isn't at all accurate.
Actually the Church of England was strict on divorce until the 60s divorce wasn't recognized. Henry VIII wanted an annulment and that's what he got it was just referred to as a divorce. But it was actually dissolved on grounds of being too closely related to we'd since Catherine was his brother's widow.
The one thing about Tudor politics is that things are not as simple as your average high school textbooks made it out to be. It honestly shouldn't have been no thing to grant Henry his annulment. He wasn't the first or the only king to put aside a wife and take up a new one. But for a variety of reasons over time, Clement wouldn't or couldn't, depending upon when Henry had done the asking.
Martin Luther is generally credited with being the father of the Reformation, as he posted the 95 Theses against the Catholic Church at the cathedral in Wittenburg in 1517. The Church of England did not separate from the Roman Catholic Church until 1534, when Henry VIII wanted to get rid of Catherine of Aragon and put it to Anne Boleyn instead.
Also, Luther suggested Henry make Anne Boleyn his concubine, Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar styles. lolol
Actually the Church of England was strict on divorce until the 60s divorce wasn't recognized. Henry VIII wanted an annulment and that's what he got it was just referred to as a divorce. But it was actually dissolved on grounds of being too closely related to we'd since Catherine was his brother's widow.
The one thing about Tudor politics is that things are not as simple as your average high school textbooks made it out to be. It honestly shouldn't have been no thing to grant Henry his annulment. He wasn't the first or the only king to put aside a wife and take up a new one. But for a variety of reasons over time, Clement wouldn't or couldn't, depending upon when Henry had done the asking.
It's been a long ass time since I've read a lot about Henry VIII, but IIRC, there was also a lot of back and forth where it seemed like he might get his annulment over a fairly long time period. It was not a simple thing, at all (if I'm remembering right).
Catherine was popular. Her nephew was eventually named Holy Roman Emperor. Clement was captured by I think the French. French allied with England and then they didn't. Spain allied with England and then they didn't.
And here's one on Cranmer which touches on what I said about Henry not wanting to reform the English church. He just wanted to break the pope's authority. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer
Martin Luther is generally credited with being the father of the Reformation, as he posted the 95 Theses against the Catholic Church at the cathedral in Wittenburg in 1517. The Church of England did not separate from the Roman Catholic Church until 1534, when Henry VIII wanted to get rid of Catherine of Aragon and put it to Anne Boleyn instead.
This is true. Even then, Henry wanted a Catholic church with no papal authority and no wealth. It seems to me that he originally started taking the church lands and such as punishment for not supporting them but once he saw how much they were sitting on, he wanted it all.
It was Henry's son Edward who really pushed the Protestant cause. Between Henry's last wife Katherine Parr, the brother of Henry's second wife what's his face Seymour and the other Seymour who married Katherine Parr but spent hid time trying to get in Elizabeth's underaged skirts, Edward was pretty much raised Protestant and was quite a staunch believer despite his young age.
Sydney, at the risk of sounding like a dick, if you're genuinely interested in the topic, you really should think about picking up some books. The bulk of what you've said in this thread isn't at all accurate.
Well I actually have been reading this afternoon. But if you read my posts, every single thing is phrased as a question or a guess. Not once did I say "this is how it is" unless you are talking about fundie beliefs because those I know pretty well. Everything I've posted is part of a conversation asking questions not as teaching information. But thanks.
Post by 2curlydogs on Jan 28, 2013 22:04:28 GMT -5
Clement was captured by Charles troops, who were largely mercenaries garnered from - guess where? - German states where Lutheranism was spreading. They sacked Rome. Badly. Like gang raping nuns in churches sort of sacking. Clement had to flee to the fortress of Castel St. Angelo to essentially save his life.
After that, what with Charles being Katherine's nephew and all that, Clement wasn't too keen on doing anything to piss him off. Including grant Henry his annullment. Clement was a bit of a vascilator anyway, so this was all in keeping with his general character.
The middle ages is when you saw the rise in monasticism and strict asceticism among those in holy orders. Traditional monastic orders, like Benedictinces, and Mendicant orders like the Franciscans. They emphasized a strict adherence to poverty and obedience to The Rule.
By contrast, the Church of the middle ages was all about excess. Excess in money, sex, power, earthly glory were the hallmarks of this era of the Church. Part of rationale for the Dissolution in England was that the above-mentioned orders had fallen into sin and vice. Luther's theses were triggered by the lax morals of the Renaissance Church, the selling of indulgences to pay for St. Peter's Basillica being the final straw, as it were. There was wide-spread corruption in the Church at that point, in comparison to the Church of the middle ages (roughly speaking: 400 - 1400, starting with the fall of Rome to about the rise of the Medici in Florence and the return of the Papacy from Avignon).
Obviously the Renaissance Church was not "liberal" by today's standards. However they did encourage and serve as the patrons of some of the most famous artists of all time - Michaelangelo, Bernini, da Vinci, Rafael, etc. - and, up until the start of the Counter Reformation (beginning with the Council of Trent in 1543 and ending at the end of the 30 Years War in the 1640s), encouraged the free thinking humanism of Erasmus, More, Galileo, etc.
I'm going to need a little bit more info on this last bit.
Leo X had a pet elephant named Hanno, and painted a little Florentine boy in gold as part of a crazy party. The boy died. So did Hanno after two years. And Leo was pope when Luther started the Reformation.
Dude.
It was a pope that started the "if you paint you're whole body you'll die" legend, then?
Interesting chart, 2v, but why are the Catholics shown as being "first" (as in, your chart suggests that it's the Orthodox who split off from them, not the fact that there was merely a disagreement between the eastern and western churches and the two decided to split.
Well, Shirley, because that was the best chart I could find. Now if you can find one that shows as much as this one with the two breaking off of one another, you do that. As far as I know it didn't come from a Cahtolic website if that is what you are inferring.
ETA: And if you look closely at the chart, the two aren't on the same level so to speak, but the break off was not similar to the other churches. It is shown differently.
Ok, so "strict" here has more to do with the teachings on sexual morality.
I think a major inaccuracy in your conclusion wrt less strict to more strict is that you are characterizing these Protestant denominations based upon what they teach today. For example, the Church of England was quite strict in these matters when it first chose to break away from the Catholic Church (well, except for divorce, of course). It is over (a lot of) time that they have changed their teachings in the other matters you have mentioned.
I think that some of the more recent denominations came about to counter the more liberal stances of these other churches over time. In other words, these recent denominations thought that the (now) liberal churches went too far in changing Christianity. If I'm not mistaken this happened in Judaism as well. IIRC, Hasidism was a response to the other branches of Judaism going too far liberal/reformed. Maybe MrD or some of the other Jewish posters can confirm, clarify or tell me I'm completely wrong about that...lol.
Actually the Church of England was strict on divorce until the 60s divorce wasn't recognized. Henry VIII wanted an annulment and that's what he got it was just referred to as a divorce. But it was actually dissolved on grounds of being too closely related to we'd since Catherine was his brother's widow.
You are right. When I think of Henry I think divorce, but in fact it was an annulment he wanted.
I'm going to need a little bit more info on this last bit.
Leo X had a pet elephant named Hanno, and painted a little Florentine boy in gold as part of a crazy party. The boy died. So did Hanno after two years. And Leo was pope when Luther started the Reformation.
So you went from poisoning people, buying elephants, and painting boys to one elephant and one boy.
I would add that the elephant was a gift from the King in Portugal at the time when Leo became Pope. As for the boy being painted, I would need to research that further. What little I did do, didn't show much info out there. I'm sure there's probably more to that story as well.
Leo X had a pet elephant named Hanno, and painted a little Florentine boy in gold as part of a crazy party. The boy died. So did Hanno after two years. And Leo was pope when Luther started the Reformation.
So you went from poisoning people, buying elephants, and painting boys to one elephant and one boy.
I would add that the elephant was a gift from the King in Portugal at the time when Leo became Pope. As for the boy being painted, I would need to research that further. What little I did do, didn't show much info out there. I'm sure there's probably more to that story as well.
Surely you wouldn't argue that Alexander VI, at the very least, was poisoning people? Innocent VIII was given the blood of three boys (in his mouth, while in a coma) to save him, and those boys died (although they weren't gold). The gold boy was for Leo's triumphal parade in Florence, and was intended to symbolize the golden era the Medici were ushering in. And poor Hanno died from gold laxatives.
The excesses of these popes were certainly exaggerated by people like Luther, but there's no doubt they occurred to some degree. Savonarola called Alexander the great whore of Babylon for a reason. Sixtux VI plotted to have Lorenzo and Giuliano de Medici murdered on Easter Sunday when the host was elevated.
Okay maybe I can. One thing you learn if you go to a Catholic school is that the Church was very corrupt around the time of the Reformation. There really isn't more to the story. They were decadent, corrupt assholes who desperately needed a wake up call about the amount of power and money they had. See: The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation if you need evidence that the Church also thought something needed to be done and that the corruption needed to be addressed.
Fantastic chart 2Vermont! Okay I need to study this. Already I see a couple that I've never heard of like Vineyard Churches and Willow Creek. And color me stupid but I didn't realize Salvation Army was a church.
They are missing the non-denominational and fundie churches though. I guess they would break off from the Evangelical Free?
I would say Vineyard churches are Pentacostal. I worked with a lady that went there, and they are very into healing, tongues, prophecy, liturgical dancing, etc. Apparently, those gifts are a main teaching point in services. I've always found it odd that they broke off of Calvary Chapel, because Calvary's big thing is teaching the Bible, verse by verse. All of the CCs I've visited have been far from pentacostal. The feel from both churches are very different (but I guess that's why churches split, LOL).
I don't know if you have a lot of experience with non-denom churches, but I wouldn't put them in the same group as fundies. Yes, there are some that are fundie, but many are very far from it. Many non-denom churches start as breaks from Baptist, Presbyterian, etc. churches. I was a member of a non-denom church in my last city, and they started after there were issues going on in a Presbyterian church. In all, I'd say it Presbyterian with a little blend of Baptist. I would assume that many of these new churches call themselves non-denom, so that way they don't have to join the national conventions (PCA, UMC, NBC, SBC, etc).
Okay maybe I can. One thing you learn if you go to a Catholic school is that the Church was very corrupt around the time of the Reformation. There really isn't more to the story. They were decadent, corrupt assholes who desperately needed a wake up call about the amount of power and money they had. See: The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation if you need evidence that the Church also thought something needed to be done and that the corruption needed to be addressed.
i didnt read the whole thread but yeah, this.
i was taught by a nun during catholic high school about how shitty popes were in the past. and you cant argue with a nun.
ill add to what eclaires said and mention both Canterbury Tales/indulgences and the Avignon Papcy.
The problem with discussing this era of the Church is one wants to separate the secular from the religious. Because that's how it is today. And you can't.
This makes it a very uncomfortable topic for most Catholics, all of whom are used to the concept of the Church not ruling any territory beyond the Vatican. And, even if you asked about it, most wouldn't have any idea there was this area called "the Papal States", much less that THE POPE ruled it.
Largely because most people in general are also uninformed on the very complicated politics and history of Europe. Most people pick up the history of the Church and Western Europe in earnest around the time of Charlemagne. Oh, you have some notable saints and popes here or there (Patrick, Brigid, Benedict, Gregory, etc.) but those are little vignettes.
But if you want to understand how the Church got to where it did in the middle ages and renaissance, you have to go back to at LEAST Constantine. If people think about Constantine at all, he's that dude whose mother was St. Helena and who stopped legal persecution of the Christians. And didn't he have a city named after him at one point? When, really, he had the largest impact on the young Church since Christ himself and possibly anyone who followed.