Protestant Catechism, is there such a thing?

[Albion]

Perhaps albion might like to comment on the 10 articles of his church from 1536

They are not of my church and never were, but

First, these articles represent the faith of Henry VIII himself who was a Catholic to his dying day and is often the target of Anglican bashers on CF who seem not to know that.

Second, these articles have never had official standing in the Church and died with Henry.

Third, they were meant only as a guideline to hold back the excesses of the religious extremists of the time. That's all.

They represent an interesting footnote in the history of Christianity, just like a lot of Papal proclamations that litter the history of the Roman Catholic Church and which no one pays any attention to anymore.

How far you have drifted.... But then is that indicative of lack of an anchor?

Actually, there isn't a lot of drift in them, whatever else might be said about them.

The Anglican church does believe in the Bible, infant baptism, remission from sin as a characteristic of a sacrament, that images may be used, salvation is by faith, Real Presence is believed, there is no Purgatory, traditional vestments are to be used, holy days are to be observed, and the saints are to be honored.

 

[rnmomof7]

There was another thread on this not too long ago.

For the Westminster confession of faith there is a short and long catechism:


https://bpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/D-lcatechism.pdf


https://bpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/d-scatechism.pdf

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith contains a catechism as well:


https://chapellibrary.org:8443/pdf/books/lbcw.pdf


In my Reformed Baptist Church each Sunday we have “lessons on the faith” during our services and in children’s Sunday school.

I am PCA and officially we are Westminster but we often recite a Catechism question and answer. from the Heidelberg confession in our service

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am PCA and officially we are Westminster but we often recite a Catechism question and answer. from the Heidelberg confession in our service

In our Church, selected readings from the Book of Concord may be read during the various services of the Daily Office, but not during the Mass. They are, however, often used to explain points being made in sermons taking for the appointed readings for the particular Sunday.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[Silverback]

Reason I ask, a few day's ago, a co-worker of mine that is a Protestant was asking me on various topics of the Catholic Church (doctrines/dogmas) and how am I to know the official Catholic Church's teaching on such topics. My answer........ The Catechism of the Catholic Church. (CCC) He was unaware that there was even such a thing, so I told him I would bring my copy of the the Catechism the following day.

After thumbing through it on our lunch break, he asked me if there is such a thing that a Protestant could turn to for official teaching in Protestantism, such as a Protestant Catechism, for he has never heard of such a thing. I told him I didn't know, and I too never heard of such a thing when I was Protestant before my converting to the Catholic Church.

So..... where do Protestant's go to get the official teaching on faith and morals. (i.e,
catechism?) or is there such a thing? I have yet to tell my co-worker, but I have come to believe there is not, or could not be due to the fact of the various denominations teaching "different doctrine" as in Baptism, the Rapture, once saved always saved, ect. for examples

Thoughts?

Check out the Lutheran Book of Concord, it's as protestant as it comes.

 

[tz620q]

What did Catholics refer to before Pope John Paul II promulgated the catechism in 1992?

If they wanted an exhaustive catechism that was supposed to be universally acknowledged, they used the Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This was published in 1566 just to replace the individual catechisms that had been written before. This does not mean that the previous ones were in error, only that the Council of Trent saw a need for one common source for teaching.

 

[carp614]

I went through confirmation as a Methodist. Based on what I have learned it is anlogous, but much less intense, to catechism.

 

[redleghunter]

If they wanted an exhaustive catechism that was supposed to be universally acknowledged, they used the Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This was published in 1566 just to replace the individual catechisms that had been written before. This does not mean that the previous ones were in error, only that the Council of Trent saw a need for one common source for teaching.

Thanks.

This previous catechism was available in languages other than Latin

 

[Resha Caner]

Anglicans used to use Luther’s small
Catechism until they incorporated a catechism based on the same later on. It’s still in classic versions of the Book of Common Prayer. I’m not sure about modern prayer books.

Really? Do you have a source for this? I'm not trying to refute your statement, but I'm surprised. Given Henry VIII was named defender of the faith for a polemic against Luther, I'm surprised they would use the Lutheran catechism.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

If they wanted an exhaustive catechism that was supposed to be universally acknowledged, they used the Roman Catechism, also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent. This was published in 1566 just to replace the individual catechisms that had been written before. This does not mean that the previous ones were in error, only that the Council of Trent saw a need for one common source for teaching.

There were various local Catechisms.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Really? Do you have a source for this? I'm not trying to refute your statement, but I'm surprised. Given Henry VIII was named defender of the faith for a polemic against Luther, I'm surprised they would use the Lutheran catechism.

I believe our friend could be a bit misinformed. The first truly "Anglican" confessional document was the 39 Articles. This was drafted in consultation with Philipist Lutherans invited by Elizabeth I, and is somewhat based on the Augsburg Confession. The Small Catechism which was never universally used by Anglicans to teach theology even though it predates the 39 Articles by about 40 years. Being raised Protestant in Germany Elizabeth was most certainly Lutheran and would have studied it, and so did the English Bishops, who were in continual contact with their counterparts in Germany.

Henry was an ass, but were it not for the communication between Anglican Bishops and their Lutheran Colleagues, one could surmise that the Anglican Reformation may have failed. Henry might have opened the door, but the majority of the powerful Bishops were ready to walk (maybe even run) through it.

 

[hedrick]

It's worth noting that most of the catechisms and confessions listed here are from confessional churches. That's not surprising, since those are the churches that give provisional authority (subordinate to Scripture, at least in theory) to catechisms and confessions. Those are, roughly speaking, Reformed and Lutheran. While there are differences in nuance, they are fairly consistent with each other. So are the Anglican articles, because they had a strong Reformed influence. Baptists, of course, disagree on when baptism is to be done, but otherwise the confession presented for them is Reformed. (This is not necessarily representative of modern Baptists, of course, but modern Baptists aren't a confessional body.)

Other Protestant churches don't always (or even typically) have official confessions or catechisms.

 

[Fidelibus]

Presumably they align with the teachings of the churches to which they belong, and not with the churches that they do not belong to.

Just as is the case with you and other Catholics.

What's so hard about this?

Okay then, let's say that somebody was Muslim, Buddist, or some other non-Christian religion, and was thinking of converting to Christianity. In doing so, they were trying to decide in either Catholicism or Protestantism, and wanted to find out what each of them taught. To what source could they go? Well, as we know, for Catholicism, all they would have to do is go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for their answers. But when it comes to Protestantism, that would be a problem. The problem being is because they would soon learn that it is impossible have a Catechism of the Protestant Church because on any given topic that would be discussed in a theoretical Protestant catechism you would have a minimum of two different teachings and possibly several different teachings. In other words, there is no teaching on faith and morals that you can say is universal throughout Protestantism, with the possible exception of Sola Scriptura - the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith.

For example, some Protestant denominations teach the rapture, some don't. Some teach a pre-tribulation rapture. Others teach a mid-tribulation rapture. There are denominations that teach men can marry men and women can marry women. There are denominations that say marriage is between one man and one woman. There are denominations that worship on Saturday. There are denominations that that worship on Sunday. A number of denominations say abortion is okay. A number of denominations say it's not. That's to name just a few.

For somebody converting to Christianty, this would be quite confusing, especially knowing that the only source for these differnt denominations is the Bible. Speaking of the Bible, what would this person think if they picked up the bible and turned to 1 Tim. 1:3

 

[Albion]

Okay then, let's say that somebody was Muslim, Buddist, or some other non-Christian religion, and was thinking of converting to Christianity. In doing so, they were trying to decide in either Catholicism or Protestantism, and wanted to find out what each of them taught. To what source could they go?

The same sources any non-believer would and could consult. First, such a person should learn about Christianity itself. Then, presuming that every denomination is up for consideration, that person could check out each belief profile online or in some other way.

Well, as we know, for Catholicism, all they would have to do is go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for their answers. But when it comes to Protestantism, that would be a problem.

In fact, there are a number of different Catholic type church bodies, just as there are a number of different Protestant denominations. I would suppose that a careful student would first decided if the Catholic kind is the one for him, or if it is the Protestant kind. Then, among those in the preferred category, make a choice.

You, however, insist upon starting with one denomination from the Catholic category and comparing it--simultaneously--against every church in the Protestant one. That is erroneous and (let's be frank, here) entirely self-serving.

That approach could just as easily be reversed with someone else talking as though the choice were the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod versus all the Catholic churches at once (RCC, EO, OO, OC, etc.). Well, gee, the Lutheran church is one and united while the Catholics are divided and have many different and conflicting beliefs.

I am sure you wouldn't think that to be appropriate even though it's the same kind of comparison you are describing to me.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Okay then, let's say that somebody was Muslim, Buddist, or some other non-Christian religion, and was thinking of converting to Christianity. In doing so, they were trying to decide in either Catholicism or Protestantism, and wanted to find out what each of them taught. To what source could they go? Well, as we know, for Catholicism, all they would have to do is go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for their answers. But when it comes to Protestantism, that would be a problem. The problem being is because they would soon learn that it is impossible have a Catechism of the Protestant Church because on any given topic that would be discussed in a theoretical Protestant catechism you would have a minimum of two different teachings and possibly several different teachings. In other words, there is no teaching on faith and morals that you can say is universal throughout Protestantism, with the possible exception of Sola Scriptura - the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith.

For example, some Protestant denominations teach the rapture, some don't. Some teach a pre-tribulation rapture. Others teach a mid-tribulation rapture. There are denominations that teach men can marry men and women can marry women. There are denominations that say marriage is between one man and one woman. There are denominations that worship on Saturday. There are denominations that that worship on Sunday. A number of denominations say abortion is okay. A number of denominations say it's not. That's to name just a few.

For somebody converting to Christianty, this would be quite confusing, especially knowing that the only source for these differnt denominations is the Bible. Speaking of the Bible, what would this person think if they picked up the bible and turned to 1 Tim. 1:3

It's Catholic arrogance and ignorance to lump all protestants together. If you have not figured it out already, you need to read some of the documents listed. We confessional Lutherans are about as "Protestant" as Eastern Rite Catholics compared to the Roman Rite Catholics if you are measuring differences. Roman Rite Catholics are a lot closer to Unitarians regarding non christian religions (according to your pope) than most protestants are.

 

[Athanasius377]

Really? Do you have a source for this? I'm not trying to refute your statement, but I'm surprised. Given Henry VIII was named defender of the faith for a polemic against Luther, I'm surprised they would use the Lutheran catechism.

There is a lengthy discussion regarding Lutheran Influence in the book about the development of the Book of Common Prayer including the catechism.

The History of the Book of Common Prayer. (W. C. E. Newbolt & F. E. Brightman, Eds.) (pp. 91–92). London; New York; Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.

I should have clarified, the catechism that was included was not word for word but largely Luther's small catechism. Cranmer didn't like Luther's doctrine of the Lord's Supper so tinkered with that area. The later catechism such as the 1928 and later books is much different.

I would also clarify the catechism regardless of the origin never held the same place in Anglican thought as does Luther's Small Catechism in Lutheran thought.

There is another book I that dealt with the catechism directly but I cannot find it at the moment. I will respond once I do.

 

[Resha Caner]

The History of the Book of Common Prayer. (W. C. E. Newbolt & F. E. Brightman, Eds.) (pp. 91–92). London; New York; Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

 

[Resha Caner]

The History of the Book of Common Prayer. (W. C. E. Newbolt & F. E. Brightman, Eds.) (pp. 91–92). London; New York; Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

Fascinating. Your source seems to have an obvious Anglican gloss, i.e. a certain polemic feel to it. I love this passage:

The influence of these [Lutheran] books was great, and may easily be detected in the English Mattins and Evensong, in the Eucharist, in the Baptismal Office, and especially in the Litany. In remembering this influence it is also important to remember that no distinctive Lutheran doctrine is contained in the Book of Common Praver. that the original Lutheran services in certain districts closely approximated to the mediaeval services, and that it was onlv after several years that the violence of Luther and some of his extreme opponents made impossible a reconciliation of the moderate men on both sides.

It has the feel of a certain cognitive dissonance at play. Of course I've only just scratched the surface, but it looks very interesting. Thanks for the reference. I've got some more digging to do now.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry. Now I'm geeking out. It happens. This article looks interesting. I had an, "Ah, now it makes sense," reaction to it.

The Anglican Appeal to Lutheran Sources: Philipp Melanchthon's Reputation in Seventeenth-Century England
by Dewey D. Wallace, Jr.
Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church
Vol. 52, No. 4 (December, 1983), pp. 355-367

It references an early influence of Melanchthon that was later overshadowed by Reformed theology. Some Lutherans would say Melanchthon wasn't a true Lutheran (true Scotsman, wink). And there's the rub. Some Calvinists would claim Calvin was a true Lutheran. Perception begins to get in the way.

 

[Athanasius377]

Sorry. Now I'm geeking out. It happens. This article looks interesting. I had an, "Ah, now it makes sense," reaction to it.

The Anglican Appeal to Lutheran Sources: Philipp Melanchthon's Reputation in Seventeenth-Century England
by Dewey D. Wallace, Jr.
Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church
Vol. 52, No. 4 (December, 1983), pp. 355-367

It references an early influence of Melanchthon that was later overshadowed by Reformed theology. Some Lutherans would say Melanchthon wasn't a true Lutheran (true Scotsman, wink). And there's the rub. Some Calvinists would claim Calvin was a true Lutheran. Perception begins to get in the way.

The English Reformation was a lot of things to a lot of people. The exact quote I was looking for is from an article in the magazine "Anglican Way" found here:

Home - Anglican Way Magazine

I am still looking for the exact issue so I will post once I find it. The quote referenced a different work than the one you are looking at.