Today's Appellations, Yesterday's Taunts

[Confessional Lutheran]

I've noticed and think it interesting that so many denominational labels today are the results of yesterday's taunts by those outside the faith being described. Martin Luther did not want his movement named after him, but his opponents kept insisting on calling his disciples after him. After awhile, the name " Lutheran" began to be worn with pride by those who professed the Augsburg Confession even over and above Martin Luther's own objections: http://www.lutherquest.org/walther/articles/nameLuth.htm.

That leads us to the Calvinists. John Calvin preached what he thought of as purified Catholic doctrine, yet people insisted that they were Calvinists and used that word as a term of abuse https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/06/05/against-calvinism/. Nowadays, people wear the term Calvinist with as much pride as many bear the name Lutheran. Isn't that curious, that mere vocal insistence can lead to a name that would stick for centuries.

On to the Anabaptists. They were called such as a term of abuse, because they baptized adults and were thus seen as heretics on both the Catholic and the Protestant sides of the sixteenth century conflict http://www.anabaptists.org/history/what-is-an-anabaptist.html.

There were Anglicans in the eighteenth century who wanted to live in a methodical way, to live lives of holiness. These Anglicans first met at Oxford University, where they were called Methodists as a term of derision by other students http://www.methodistheritage.org.uk/heritageofmethodism.htm.

I'm sure that there are other examples of people being called a derisive name and then embracing that name as their own, but it is interesting how much pride people will come to take in a name that started out as a term of abuse.

 

[Albion]

This is more or less true--more in the case of Lutherans and Methodists and less so in the case of Anabaptists and Calvinists--but I wonder if you've just about run out of examples of it? I can't think of others, although there might be several more.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholics keep a level and balanced emotional and intellectual approach. We're still Catholic and we still have the Catholic Church regardless of what other people want to call us

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

This is more or less true--more in the case of Lutherans and Methodists and less so in the case of Anabaptists and Calvinists--but I wonder if you've just about run out of examples of it? I can't think of others, although there might be several more.

I can think of the Quakers ( who are still officially the Religious Society of Friends, but they don't mind calling themselves Quakers now, apparently) and I think I read somewhere that the Roman Catholics had the term " Roman" applied to them as part of some " three branch theory" https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm, but I'm not quite sure if that's a term of derision, or simply something seen as inaccurate. I know that now, most of the churches in Christendom go by names they apply to themselves, such as the Baptists, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Moravians, the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonite Church, etc., etc. aren't descended from derisive nicknames, but simply describe themselves by church polity or theology.

 

[Albion]

I can think of the Quakers ( who are still officially the Religious Society of Friends, but they don't mind calling themselves Quakers now, apparently)

Ah, yes. That counts.

and I think I read somewhere that the Roman Catholics had the term " Roman" applied to them as part of some " three branch theory" [/quote] Naa. That one doesn't work...s by church polity or theology.[/QUOTE] True.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Catholic Church makes no claim to exclusive ownership of the word "catholic". Call your local church building "Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church" and see how many people will think it is Anglican

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

The Catholic Church makes no claim to exclusive ownership of the word "catholic". Call your local church building "Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Church" and see how many people will think it is Anglican

St. Francis of Assisi Anglican Catholic Church, maybe? Before I derail my own thread ( again), let's look into the beginnings of the term " Christian," itself. That seems to have been a snide term for people trying to be like " little Christs," for not conforming to the expectations of the wider pagan Roman culture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

St. Francis of Assisi Anglican Catholic Church, maybe?

That would confuse people. Drop the Catholic from the title and people in the UK and Australia will have no trouble with knowing who runs it.

In the USA "Episcopal" would probably work better than "Anglican"

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

That would confuse people. Drop the Catholic from the title and people in the UK and Australia will have no trouble with knowing who runs it.

In the USA "Episcopal" would probably work better than "Anglican"

Who knows. In point of fact, the term Anglican Catholic is already in use by a Continuing body.. http://www.anglicancatholic.org/

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even a name like "Oakland Catholic Church" would be interpreted by most people as a Catholic Church but not as an Anglican one.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

Even a name like "Oakland Catholic Church" would be interpreted by most people as a Catholic Church but not as an Anglican one.

Good point. Denominating ( naming) religious groups like that is important because it says something about the group, whether it be positive or negative. Even negative epithets can come to be regarded as positive terms ( given enough time).

 

[Albion]

Even a name like "Oakland Catholic Church" would be interpreted by most people as a Catholic Church but not as an Anglican one.

But I don't think we can make "what most people think" be the determiner. They would also think that "Anglican Catholic Church" means it's a Roman Catholic Church, and I know that for a fact. The ACC is constantly having to explain what's what.

In the USA "Episcopal" would probably work better than "Anglican"

Not unless you want almost everyone to think that it's a parish of "The Episcopal Church"--and avoiding that little problem is the main reason that the Anglican Catholic Church chose "Anglican."

The Catholic Church makes no claim to exclusive ownership of the word "catholic".

From a technical and official POV, I expect that that's correct. However, it seems that almost all of the rank and file members think that it belongs to their church alone and, as you know, there are quite a few online posters who get very worked up about it. You must have had someone else in mind when writing that Catholics keep a level and balanced approach to such things.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But I don't think we can make "what most people think" be the determiner. They would also think that "Anglican Catholic Church" means it's a Roman Catholic Church, and I know that for a fact. The ACC is constantly having to explain what's what.

Not unless you want almost everyone to think that it's a parish of "The Episcopal Church"--and avoiding that little problem is the main reason that the Anglican Catholic Church chose "Anglican."

The ACC chose its name unwisely if it is so confusing. "The Anglican Church of the USA" may have served them better

 

[Albion]

The ACC chose its name unwisely if it is so confusing. "The Anglican Church of the USA" may have served them better

Possibly, but I was commenting there only about why "Episcopal" would have posed problems. The church chose to include the word "Catholic" because it is an Anglo-Catholic church in doctrine and practice and intended to make that point.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But they are Anglican, right?

Using Anglican Catholic Church is as confusing to people as would be Anglican Lutheran Church or Anglican Orthodox Church.

 

[Albion]

But they are Anglican, right?

Using Anglican Catholic Church is as confusing to people as would be Anglican Lutheran Church or Anglican Orthodox Church.

To correct that statement, all of these are confusing to the average person. :wink: Remember that the Episcopal Church, although famous in the USA, is really a small body with only about 1.5 million members out of a population of 350 million or so. So, to expect the non-Anglicans to keep track of the other and smaller Anglican churches is, in truth, expecting a lot.

By the way, there actually are an Anglo-Lutheran Church and an Anglican Orthodox Church here.

 

[MoreCoffee]

To correct that statement, all of these are confusing to the average person. :wink: Remember that the Episcopal Church, although famous in the USA, is really a small body with only about 1.5 million members out of a population of 350 million or so. So, to expect the non-Anglicans to keep track of the other and smaller Anglican churches is, in truth, expecting a lot.

By the way, there actually are an Anglo-Lutheran Church and an Anglican Orthodox Church here.

Only in the USA!

:smirk:

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

But they are Anglican, right?

Using Anglican Catholic Church is as confusing to people as would be Anglican Lutheran Church or Anglican Orthodox Church.

http://www.augustanacatholicchurch.co/what-we-believe.html

http://www.orthodoxanglican.us/about/beliefs/

There you go, man. I need to walk the dog and thence to work. I hope you guys have a great convo!

 

[Albion]

Only in the USA!

Well, that is what freedom of religion gets you.

In other countries that are similar to us in culture, there is supposed to be freedom of religion but there really are many government restrictions that would shock most Americans. Canada, for example, but I don't know how it is in Australia.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, that is what freedom of religion gets you.

In other countries that are similar to us in culture, there is supposed to be freedom of religion but there really are many government restrictions that would shock most Americans. Canada, for example, but I don't know how it is in Australia.

What restrictions?