Well, the “Catholic” groups that you mentioned are not considered Catholic. They’re not in communion with the Church, and Catholics are not permitted to receive Communion in their churches.
As for Protestants, who is to decide? I’m not sure what constitutes “core Reformation doctrine.” But I’m sure it would be a real surprise to some of the flakier little charismatic country churches around here that they’re “not Protestant,” because they certainly consider themselves to be so. The schismatic formerly Catholic groups you mentioned above, however, know perfectly well that they are not in communion with Rome.
The only thing the Church has to be unified on are the core doctrines. There are many issues where there is legitimate difference and speculation; after all, doctrines are usually defined in response to a challenge, and until something appears that makes those issues important, they remain speculative matters (as long as this speculation does not go outside of the range inherently permitted by the core doctrines).
You may have been reading some of the discussions of the liturgical forms lately: these are areas where there is legitimate difference of opinion, and even variation in practice. But then there are groups, such as the SSPX, that go beyond that, and then they become schismatic, and separate themselves from the Church by rejecting its authority. So you see there is an authority to reject, and the consequence of rejecting it is that you do not merely become a “dissident Catholic group,” you become not Catholic at all and are outside of the Church.
Actually, most of them don't consider themselves Protestant in any other than the the overly generalized "not Catholic or Orthodox" sense. A great number of churches are either non-denominational or Campbellite (anti-creedal) churches which are neither historically nor doctrinally Protestant. The problem is that many have falsely defined the term Protestant in the way I described above: not Catholic. That's simply a flawed definition.
The schismatic formerly Catholic groups you mentioned above, however, know perfectly well that they are not in communion with Rome.
And the Campbellites know perfectly well they're not Protestant as they purposely and knowingly refuse to recognize any Protestant doctrine as necessarily binding upon the church and its members as a basis for positive or negative sanction.
The only thing the Church has to be unified on are the core doctrines. There are many issues where there is legitimate difference and speculation; after all, doctrines are usually defined in response to a challenge, and until something appears that makes those issues important, they remain speculative matters (as long as this speculation does not go outside of the range inherently permitted by the core doctrines).
This is no different from Protestant churches. The only difference is an overarching ecclesiastical authority structure over the various mainline Protestant denominations. They remain unified in their core doctrines (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). The main ecclesiastical difference is which doctrines are considered core and the differences in authority structure.
You may have been reading some of the discussions of the liturgical forms lately: these are areas where there is legitimate difference of opinion, and even variation in practice. But then there are groups, such as the SSPX, that go beyond that, and then they become schismatic, and separate themselves from the Church by rejecting its authority. So you see there is an authority to reject, and the consequence of rejecting it is that you do not merely become a “dissident Catholic group,” you become not Catholic at all and are outside of the Church.
This goes back to the fundamentally different view of the nature of the church with respect to visible institutions. You believe that the Holy Spirit will only maintain the church through the authoritative structure of a visible institution, while we believe He will maintain it regardless of whether there is a single unified visible institution.
As for Protestants, who is to decide? I’m not sure what constitutes “core Reformation doctrine.” But I’m sure it would be a real surprise to some of the flakier little charismatic country churches around here that they’re “not Protestant,” because they certainly consider themselves to be so....The only thing the Church has to be unified on are the core doctrines. There are many issues where there is legitimate difference and speculation; after all, doctrines are usually defined in response to a challenge, and until something appears that makes those issues important, they remain speculative matters (as long as this speculation does not go outside of the range inherently permitted by the core doctrines).
Great post, livius! To your point, the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. You raise in an interesting problem in that many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject these creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine, and thus there is no simple way of determining whether they are "in the fold" or not.
I would never suggest that creeds are a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that they are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in prior ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes such as you mention. IMO creeds were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer.
The practical result of any refusal to use a creed/confession/doctrinal statement of some kind, is such that every time someone wants to investigate a brother's doctrine, they must go through the Bible - all of it - and see how each agrees with each other's reading, point-for-point, of:
All 66 books
All 1,189 chapters
All 31,373 verses
All 775,693 words
...and since those numbers are drwan from the KJV, they'll probably debate whether to limit the reading to the Authorized Version as well. Will each agree with the other's beliefs and doctrines point-for-point? How long will either of them endure the investigation, how much error will either of them permit, before one gets fed up and separates from the other?
By refusing to profess/acknowledge a creed, or at least publish/profess an "articles of faith" / "doctrinal statement", the anti-creedal believer and/or their congregation functionally accomplishes five things:
- a tacit a priori rejection of every prior study and/or codification of doctrine formulated by any church body, at any and every point in church history,The phrase "Protestant" loses meaning when it's used inclusively to speak of everyone "not Catholic and not Orthodox". It becomes a meaningless epithet when used in this manner. IMO "Protestant" should be redefined to be synonymous with the phrase "Reformed", i.e. with the pro-creedal churches that emerged from the Reformation. While there are other churches and denominations that sprang out of that era (and since), they did not form in protest to the excesses of the institutional Catholic Church. Instead, most of them formed as a protest and opposition to the creeds, confessions, and doctrinal distinctives held by the Reformed (Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican etc) churches. In other words, they were part of the counter Reformation/"radical Reformation" movement.
- a practical behavior, if not an outright creed-like belief and teaching, that Wisdom ended in the first century (when special revelation did), effectively dismissing any and all possible wisdom acquired by any bible-believing Christian in any post-NT church era, contrary to Proverbs 2:6-9,
- an allowance of relatively minor points of doctrine (eschatology, worship forms and practices, ecclesiastical government forms, etc) to be granted equal status with major points of doctrine (the Trinity, nature of salvation, etc),
- an allowance for doctrinal stances to shift unknowingly from moment to moment, congregation to congregation, pastor to pastor, or even from week to week, without declaration or documentation,
- a willful sequestering of oneself from examination and correction by any congregation, visitors, friends, fellow believers and unbelievers, preventing all from discovering one's actual doctrinal beliefs without forcing a long, arduous and mandatory investigation.
In more recent times, and following in this latter group's tradition, is the Restorationist (Campbellite) movement of the 19th century. Restorationists reject any prior reforms or formal creeds, Catholic or Protestant. Restorationists believe they are returning believers to an authentic "first century church" experience, by attempting to take the church back to a time when no creed had been formed. In our own lifetime we're faced with the Emergent Church phenomenon, which also seeks to throw off historic traditions and orthodoxies that might color how the Bible is understood. They are not protesting in favor of a particular doctrine over another - they are apparently protesting any institutionalizing of traditions, creeds, and exegesis altogether, in a manner similar to the Restorationists.
IMO both groups (and countless non-denominational others) are born of the (false) beliefs that all institutional authority is corrupt by definition, and that the larger/older the institution is, the more corrupt it is. Thus, the Restorationist desire to not form (institutionalize) their congregations into a denomination, to limit ecclesiastical authority to the local church body only, to avoid formulating any binding creeds or statements of faith to be held accountable to. "No Creed but Christ, No Law but Love, No Book but the Bible". To re-write a familiar proverb in Restorationist terms, "you might successfully tie two strands into a cord, but binding three together weakens the whole."
IMO most of the churches that are called "Protestant" by Catholics aren't deserving of that historic title, and it would be wise to understand and recognize the profound differences between them. IMO those believers that individually and institutionally submit themselves to the historic creeds of the church can be said to be "in agreement", since the creeds define what their shared beliefs are, and provide a useful way for insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they are doctrinally and congregationally unified.