Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying those things are bad. I still appreciate a good sermon — even many non-Catholic ones. But much of Protestantism has transformed church almost exclusively into a prolonged liturgy of the Word: only one-half of the Catholic Mass. The Protestant version usually features far less actual Bible reading than Mass, and a sermon many times longer than the average Catholic homily.
Groups like the Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans retain the weekly Eucharist as the central aspect of their worship service; but other denominations — such as Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, and the many non-denominational groups — tend to have Communion only once a month. Most Mennonites observe Holy Communion only twice a year. Quakers and the Salvation Army, not at all. The latter two groups don’t practice any sacraments, or “ordinances,” or “rites” — not even baptism. Behind this sort of thinking, lies an antipathy toward sacramentalism, the belief in the ability of matter to convey grace. Accordingly, Protestants who place less emphasis on the Eucharist tend to also regard baptism as basically a symbolic ritual, with none of the regenerating power Catholics believe it possesses.
How can vast portions of Christianity, today, deny what was accepted without question by virtually all Christians right up to the time of Martin Luther? Indeed, even Luther retained the doctrines of the Real Presence (in the slightly-diluted form of consubstantiation) and baptismal regeneration.
3 comments:
How can vast portions of Christianity, today, deny what was accepted without question by virtually all Christians right up to the time of Martin Luther?
I believe your argument is based on a false assumption. Many beliefs BECAME accepted during the early church age AFTER the Apostolic age.
Due to the belief of papal infalibility, if Catholicism makes an error and said error is proclaimed an infalible truth by a Pope, it is extremely difficult to change. In fact, the only way it can be changed is to say it is being "redefined" or "clairified". Now I realize that Catholics are going to say that a Pope cannot make a mistake and proclaim it infalible, but that isn't my belief. If it were, I would be Catholic.
Non-Catholics, if a mistake is made, CAN say "Whoops! We were wrong." Unfortunately, that often leads to denominational splits.
As a Non-Catholic, when I read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and Scripture, I can see how Catholic beliefs have changed over time, without the need to explain them in light of papal infalibility. I hope that answers your question (assuming it wasn't just rhetorical).
Point of clairifaction: I did not wright the article so it's not my argument. But I do thank you for your thoughts.
Ah, gotcha.
Sorry, misread it.
Post a Comment