Not Catholic...Not Protestant...Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Katerina

Puritan Board Freshman
For all of you church history buffs.....are there any denominations that are not RCC but did not come from the Protestant Reformation?

I am having a conversation with a catholic and I have made the statement that not all non-rcc churches came from the reformation. I remember reading this somewhere....but for the life I cannot remember where.

Can anyone help me?
 
Well...I don't consider myself a history buff but I know that the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Greek, Syrian, Russian, etc.) and, I believe the Egyptian Coptic Churches could be considered as being neither Roman Catholic or Protestant.
 
There were also the pre-Reformation breaks with Rome like the Waldensians and the Hussites. There was also an independent celtic church mostly in Ireland until they were later subdued by the papacy around 600AD(?).
 
Additionally, the Protestant Reformers did not view the Anabaptists as part of the Reformation, although historically their origin is tied in with Luther's break from the Papacy.

The split between the Roman and Eastern churches occurred officially in 1054 (pre-Reformation). The primacy of the bishop (Pope) of Rome vs. the patriarches of the East was one major issue. The two branches also differ on celibacy for priests, when to celebrate Christ-mass (December 25 in the West and January 6 in the East) as well as certain other issues. The info below may shed some additional light.
===========================================
The Eastern Orthodox Churches

The assertion of the early Christian church that Jesus was the incarnation of God on earth created a theological dilemma. If Jesus was God, could he also be a human being, a man whom other humans could emulate because he had endured human suffering? One solution was to say that Jesus was both true God and true man--that, in fact, God can exist in the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and still be One. This concept was debated at church councils in Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, and Ephesus in 431, and was reasserted at the fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon in 451. It eventually became known as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

But not all Christians agreed, fearing that it implied a division between the human and divine in Jesus. The split deepened over the next two ecumenical councils, and these "non-Chalcedonian" Christians separated into other churches known as Monophysite for their belief that Christ has only one nature, although they do accept his humanity. The Monophysite churches included the

Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt

Syrian Orthodox Church, sometimes called Jacobite, for the 6th century Bishop Jacob Baradaeus.

Ethiopian Orthodox Church, linked until 1959 with the Copts.

Syrian Orthodox Church of the Malabar (South India), also known as the St. Thomas Christians, or Mar Thoma, for the Apostle Thomas, who they claimed as their founder and who supposedly suffered martyrdom near Madras.

In addition, between the 8th and 11th centuries, a schism developed between the Roman and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Church, which came to a head, known as the Great Schism, in 1054. The main point of contention was the Roman Church's insistence that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son, rather than just from the Father.

The Eastern Orthodox branch included the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Serbia, and Russia, with modern branches including the Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Ukrainian, and Carpatho-Russian Orthodox. The Orthodox today profess most of the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church, but they reject the leadership and infallibility of the Pope, preferring to follow their own local bishops, called metropolitans. (Senior bishops are patriarchs; monasteries are headed by archimandrites.) Eastern Orthodox priests can marry and have families, but bishops were required to be celibate from about the 7th century, and today they must be monks as well.

Orthodox belief emphasizes the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Since God is viewed as the Cosmic Creator, His taking on human form is a great inconceivable mystery. And so the Orthodox use of icons -- representations of the Incarnated God, along with Mary and the saints -- is their way of celebrating that mystery and not mere "idol worship" as Western Christians believed. The iconoclastic movement begun by Pope Leo III in 725 was intended to counter the Eastern belief in the legitimacy of icons (and perhaps as a response to the rapid growth of Islam, which forbade all use of images). However, Leo's precepts were eventually rejected by the Church, and now both Roman and Eastern Christians are free to venerate statues, icons, and other images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints.

Eastern Orthodoxy also emphasizes monasticism and the pursuit of mystical union with God much more than either Roman Catholicism or Protestant Christianity. But with about 225 million practitioners worldwide, the Orthodox make up just a little more than ten percent of the world Christian population.

Source: http://www.myss.com/worldreligions/Christianity8.asp
 
Eastern Orthodox is the big one. They have hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Calvin cited their apostolic succession as over against the Roman church as evidence that more than succession is needed. Here is a historical timeline from an Eastern Orthodox perspective:

http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html
 
Pre-Reformation breaks such as the Waldensians and Hussites joined the reformation so they should be considered Protestant. Infact Luther was accused of following John Hus, who was pretty much a convert to Enlgish Lollardy. Hus said they could burn the goose but a century later the swan will come. He was predicting Luther and the protestant reformation. The Irish/Scottish church were called the Culdees. They were based in Iona and their most notable leader was St. Columba. All of Briton owned this religion until the pagan Anglo-Saxons invaded and later became Papists.
 
The Coptic Orthodox are a Monophysite cult. The same could be said for the Armenian Church. The Chaldeen are Nestorian Cultists. The Mar Thomas Church of Indian is orthodox and neither Romish nor Protestant.
 
I know that I lurk here more than anything...but you guys ROCK!!!

Anywho...Anabaptist was what I was thinking about. I have read some Anabaptist books and I thought I remembered that they were not really a part of the reformation. ...They did not consider themselves part of it and the Reformers did not consider the Anabaptists a part either.

Thank you all for the information. I will do some research of my own and chech out the links that you all have provided.
 
Anabaptist would definitely fall into the "product of the Reformation era" category, even though they are a separately identifiable classification from Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and similar. The latter are known generally as "magesterial" reformers, meaning they were aiming to reform the church, and do it within a framework of authority and continuity with the past.

Ananbaptists belonged to the radical wing of the reformation. They were anti-structural, anti-authoritarian. The worst of the lot were fanatical zealots who believed in bringing in the kingdom through violent revolution. Others were far quieter, even mystical about their brand of Christianity. The common thread was a wholesale abandonment of church structure/authority. For them the church had ceased after the primitive era, and was now (the 1500's) in a position to be recovered/reconstituted.

Groups that arose and weathered their difficulties during that age are today certain continental Brethren churches, Menonites, and even Moravians (through historical migrations and mergers). And yet apart from the Reformation, these movements, peripheral though they were, could scarcely have emerged in the manner as they did.

As for practically the entirety of Baptists in America--their history goes back to English dissent post-Henry VIII, not Anabaptism proper (though there was probably a detectable degree of influence). From English development then, and later American, Baptist missionaries or pastors have gone to other countries and planted baptist churches and denominations worldwide. Nevertheless, despite widespread loss of Reformational/Calvinistic doctrine, and similarites to/sympathies with "fringe" Anabaptism, the common Baptist heritage is even more thickly Reformational.
 
Kat:

Here are some good resources on anabaptists:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/anabapt.htm

Broadly speaking, there were two classes of reformers, The first were the magisterial reformers. These included Lutherans (which were mainly in the germanic regions), Reformed (Calvinistic) (which were mainly in other parts of the Continent), and Anglicans (in England). They were mainly interested in reforming the existing church institutions. They did not desire (and even opposed) independency, denominationalism, schisms, and the like. They wanted a institutionally unified church, even though in the end they did not get it. Then there were the "Radical Reformers." The anabaptists were in the second group. They were very indepdent in terms of the institutional church and were all over the board in terms of theology and practice. The better known ones were involved in gross sexual immorality, millenial hyseria (such as the Fifth Monarchy Men), and the like.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott]
 
A Protestant means to one who protest.
what a protestant should be protesting the Roman Catholic Church.
Also anything that goes against scripture.
 
The Aglican church did not come out of the reformation. It is basically a popeless RCC that was born out of Henry VIII's illegal divorce of his first wife. Their 39 articles of confession do contain some elements of Calvinism but is really just one large compromise of anything goes doctrines.
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
The Aglican church did not come out of the reformation. It is basically a popeless RCC that was born out of Henry VIII's illegal divorce of his first wife. Their 39 articles of confession do contain some elements of Calvinism but is really just one large compromise of anything goes doctrines.
Click to expand...

I consider the main branches of the Reformation to be Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican. The Church of England did have a unique historical beginning in Henry VIII's desire to get divorced with church approval. While the whole Puritan movement was born out an interest in carrying Reform further within the Church of England, this had much to do with worship and Erastianism, not so much soteriology. The Thirty-Nine Articles was strongly Calvinistic for the most part.
 
The Anglican Church is not RCC without a Pope. The 39 Articles are solid. They are sort of a less detailed version of the WCF. The Articles expressly repudiate the chief errors of Catholicism, including purgatory, veneration of images, relics, prayers to saints, the papacy, etc.
 
The truth about the Anglican Church seems to be somewhere in between what Max and Scott have said.

The 39 Articles have proven able to accommodate both puritans and anglo-catholics, evangelicals and liberals.

The main thing anymore seems to be, as some wag has said, "not so much to prove doctrine as to look like an Englishman at prayer"; the Anglican church has always been factionalized, sometimes bitterly so, the crown has, historically, been more interested in maintaining a veneer of Christian propriety than in hammering out doctrine.

Anglicans are like the little girl with the little curl, "when they're good they're very, very good, and when they're bad they're awful"
 
The 39 Articles cannot accommodate Anglo-Catholics. There are Anglo-Catholics in the communion but their views contradict the Articles. The reason Anglo-Catholics stay in is b/c there is virtually no discipline. There are extreme liberals in the ECUSA too, who depart from the Article at probably nearly every point and yet are not disciplined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top