Yeah. I think Hegseth's church is part of something called the Communion Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an umbrella group founded by Wilson.
It's a denomination with some Presbyterian features.
Technically more Reformed.
Technically a distinction without much difference. “Presbyterian” is simply the British form of what in Continental Europe was called “Reformed.” “Reformed” refers to the theology and ecclesiology, “Presbyterian” refers to the form of government typically used by Reformed churches.
The CREC, as I understand it, claims Presbyterian, Continental Reformed and Reformed Baptist roots. Their doctrinal statements include the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession as well as the (Continental Reformed) Three Forms of Unity.
I really do not want to occupy a thread on Pope Leo over the differences between the CREC and mainline Presbyterian polity. Let's just say the the CREC is highly centralized in Doug Wilson. The CREC lacks the robust checks and balances of historical presbyterian system. Moreover, it advocates for patriarchal gender roles and it opposes LGBTQ inclusion
The CREC is a tightly centralized, theologically hard‑right, Christian‑nationalist Reformed community built around Doug Wilson’s leadership, while the PC(USA) is a broad, democratic, mainline Presbyterian denomination committed to social justice, ecumenism, and shared governance.
CREC’s Theological Center of Gravity Is Not Westminster
Even when a CREC congregation adopts Westminster, the denomination’s overall theological culture is shaped by: Federal Vision theology; Postmillennialism; Paedocommunion; Theonomy‑leaning ethics; and, Doug Wilson’s own doctrinal emphases
These positions depart from or stretch traditional Westminster interpretations, especially on: covenant theology; justification and assurance; the sacraments, and the civil magistrate.
Yeah. I think Hegseth's church is part of something called the Communion Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an umbrella group founded by Wilson.
It's a denomination with some Presbyterian features.
Technically more Reformed.
Technically a distinction without much difference. “Presbyterian” is simply the British form of what in Continental Europe was called “Reformed.” “Reformed” refers to the theology and ecclesiology, “Presbyterian” refers to the form of government typically used by Reformed churches.
In England, at least, Congregationalists were considered Reformed too, hence the United Reformed Church.
I imagine Leo was mainly talking to his own flock rather to a man who is likely to reject his words out of hand on "theological" grounds.
He may have been primarily preaching to Roman Catholics, but I should think he knew perfectly well and intended that a lot of non-Roman Catholics would hear of his speech.
Yeah. I think Hegseth's church is part of something called the Communion Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an umbrella group founded by Wilson.
It's a denomination with some Presbyterian features.
Technically more Reformed.
Technically a distinction without much difference. “Presbyterian” is simply the British form of what in Continental Europe was called “Reformed.” “Reformed” refers to the theology and ecclesiology, “Presbyterian” refers to the form of government typically used by Reformed churches.
In England, at least, Congregationalists were considered Reformed too, hence the United Reformed Church.
Indeed the Congregationalists are Reformed. I should have said “a British form” rather than “the British form.” The terminology in Britain tended to focus on polity (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopal) rather than theology.
Yeah. I think Hegseth's church is part of something called the Communion Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an umbrella group founded by Wilson.
It's a denomination with some Presbyterian features.
Technically more Reformed.
Technically a distinction without much difference. “Presbyterian” is simply the British form of what in Continental Europe was called “Reformed.” “Reformed” refers to the theology and ecclesiology, “Presbyterian” refers to the form of government typically used by Reformed churches.
The CREC, as I understand it, claims Presbyterian, Continental Reformed and Reformed Baptist roots. Their doctrinal statements include the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession as well as the (Continental Reformed) Three Forms of Unity.
I really do not want to occupy a thread on Pope Leo over the differences between the CREC and mainline Presbyterian polity.
Then don’t. Or perhaps this tangent warrants being split into its own thread about the CREC.
@chrisstiles said the nothing about “mainline Presbyterian polity.” He said the CREC is “a denomination with some Presbyterian features.” (My emphasis.) I stand by my statement that in the context of what chrisstiles said, your response of “technically more Reformed” is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
That document is entitled “The CREC is not PRESBTERIAN”—and no one here claimed that it is. The claim was that the CREC “is a denomination with some Presbyterian features,” which that document plainly shows it is. (And note that the example it gives of Presbyterian” is the much more conservative PCA, not the PC(USA).)
In a crossover with the 'How do MAGA supporters square their views with the Sermon on the Mount?' thread, conservative voices on social media are leaning very heavily on the Kill Em All passages in the OT to claim Pope Leo is absolutely wrong about Hegseth and clearly doesn't know his Bible.
@Nick Tamen The main difference between the CREC and Presbyterians is in the area of governance. The CREC is heavily centralized under the person of Doug Wilson while Presbyterians have elected congregational councils and regional bodies. Nuff said.
Leo XIV fits squarely within the long line of popes who have made peace a defining mark of their ministry — but he does it with a tone, clarity, and geopolitical directness that place him closer to Francis and John Paul II than to earlier, more diplomatically cautious pontiffs.
Sorry @Gramps49, but you seem to be engaging with something you think others have said than what has actually been said. You’re trying to rebut claims that haven’t been made.
Leo XIV fits squarely within the long line of popes who have made peace a defining mark of their ministry — but he does it with a tone, clarity, and geopolitical directness that place him closer to Francis and John Paul II than to earlier, more diplomatically cautious pontiffs.
I think some in the USA imagined that an American pope might be more in tune with their way of thinking. Hes an interesting mixture because he moved back into the Vatican Palace rather than using the basic hotel that Francis preferred, and he has taken to wearing more traditional capes etc when greeting heads of state. But his message is totally in line with Francis. Having been worldwide head of a missionary order he will have travelled to some "interesting" parts of the world, and not as a VIP. That has evidently coloured his visions of what the church should be concerned about.
In a crossover with the 'How do MAGA supporters square their views with the Sermon on the Mount?' thread, conservative voices on social media are leaning very heavily on the Kill Em All passages in the OT to claim Pope Leo is absolutely wrong about Hegseth and clearly doesn't know his Bible.
He won't be the first pope in my lifetime to have been called a heretic or Antichrist by people on the edges of Christianity. Somehow they survived.
Leo XIV fits squarely within the long line of popes who have made peace a defining mark of their ministry — but he does it with a tone, clarity, and geopolitical directness that place him closer to Francis and John Paul II than to earlier, more diplomatically cautious pontiffs.
I think some in the USA imagined that an American pope might be more in tune with their way of thinking. Hes an interesting mixture because he moved back into the Vatican Palace rather than using the basic hotel that Francis preferred, and he has taken to wearing more traditional capes etc when greeting heads of state. But his message is totally in line with Francis. Having been worldwide head of a missionary order he will have travelled to some "interesting" parts of the world, and not as a VIP. That has evidently coloured his visions of what the church should be concerned about.
There is an issue of the world as it is and as you wish it to be. Some regimes simply won’t take diplomats seriously if they appear - to their eyes - poor. I imagine this problem also applies to the papacy.
In a crossover with the 'How do MAGA supporters square their views with the Sermon on the Mount?' thread, conservative voices on social media are leaning very heavily on the Kill Em All passages in the OT to claim Pope Leo is absolutely wrong about Hegseth and clearly doesn't know his Bible.
I’m deliberately avoiding such discussion forums (having been savaged myself), but I’m not surprised.
...Indeed the Congregationalists are Reformed. I should have said “a British form” rather than “the British form.” The terminology in Britain tended to focus on polity (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Episcopal) rather than theology. ...
That's what normally differentiates denominations in England, not historically so much so in Scotland. Indeed, when it comes to the CofE and the Methodists, that is the core of what differentiates them.
Denominations here seem to be able to tolerate within themselves a wide range of different opinions on theology. It is who can say who else does what, how they are appointed and how things are done which is what they have really come to blows about. To a surprising extent these days, that even applies when it comes to the differences between the Roman Catholics and everybody else.
Tangent ended
Returning to Pope Leo, both he and Pope Francis have been widely respected among non-Catholics in the UK.
On Pope Leo v Hegseth, UK public opinion is generally much more hostile to both Hesgeth and his master than the official line the government is taking. Neither Hesgeth nor Trump do anything to enhance regard or respect for their country by their repeated insults recently of the UK and its military. They have both done this yet again only today. I assume they both think that deprecating other countries shames them and brings them into line. It doesn't seem to occur to them that it is having the opposite effect.
If you are elsewhere, it is best to assume that general public opinion in the UK agrees with Pope Leo on this.
Leo XIV fits squarely within the long line of popes who have made peace a defining mark of their ministry — but he does it with a tone, clarity, and geopolitical directness that place him closer to Francis and John Paul II than to earlier, more diplomatically cautious pontiffs.
I think some in the USA imagined that an American pope might be more in tune with their way of thinking. Hes an interesting mixture because he moved back into the Vatican Palace rather than using the basic hotel that Francis preferred, and he has taken to wearing more traditional capes etc when greeting heads of state. But his message is totally in line with Francis. Having been worldwide head of a missionary order he will have travelled to some "interesting" parts of the world, and not as a VIP. That has evidently coloured his visions of what the church should be concerned about.
There is an issue of the world as it is and as you wish it to be. Some regimes simply won’t take diplomats seriously if they appear - to their eyes - poor. I imagine this problem also applies to the papacy.
That is an interesting thought. Particularly when dealing with those who judge a person's merit solely by how much money they have, there is value in dressing the part. Some would rather be harmed by the rich than saved by the poor.
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
At the end of the day, though, most of those two billion Catholics aren't voting in US elections.
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
At the end of the day, though, most of those two billion Catholics aren't voting in US elections.
1.4 billion RCs in the world, actually. 267 mil RCs in US are voting age. That is a pretty big chunk. Who's to say how many will turn out for midterms and which way they will vote. Big issues for them is immigration and the war. Leo can sway quite a few of them though he will never endorse any given candidate.
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
At the end of the day, though, most of those two billion Catholics aren't voting in US elections.
1.4 billion RCs in the world, actually. 267 mil RCs in US are voting age. That is a pretty big chunk. Who's to say how many will turn out for midterms and which way they will vote. Big issues for them is immigration and the war. Leo can sway quite a few of them though he will never endorse any given candidate.
There are about 70 million Catholics in the US*. How can 267 million of them be of voting age?
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
At the end of the day, though, most of those two billion Catholics aren't voting in US elections.
1.4 billion RCs in the world, actually. 267 mil RCs in US are voting age. That is a pretty big chunk. Who's to say how many will turn out for midterms and which way they will vote. Big issues for them is immigration and the war. Leo can sway quite a few of them though he will never endorse any given candidate.
Oh, I don't doubt he has some following in the USA. But what percentage of Usonian Catholics would you say fall into the venn overlap of...
...a) willing to vote Democrat, and...
...b) pivot their opinions about foreign-policy exclusively on the Pope's statements?
My own guess is that most of the people in the first category were already opposed to the invasion before the Pope spoke out, and that most of the people in the second won't vote for a party they believe is denounced by the Third Secret Of Fatima.
In statistical terms, I think the electoral impact of statements by Pope Leo XIV on US politics might be in the vicinity of a really barbed roasting from a top-tier late-night comic. Granted, those are not universally without effect, but it's usually not the main reason for the rise or fall of anyone's political fortunes.
Sorry. I truly mean it as a positive term. I thought it was a great idea of Frank Lloyd Wright's(yeah yeah, appeal to authority), and will defend its theoretical validity to anyone.
(And just to be clear, I don't regard it as equivalent to "USian", which is an insulting term I've only ever heard from a particularly obnoxious subset of Canadian nationalists, the kinda people who say stuff "Canadians can relate to the victims of USian imperialism in Central America, because we were attacked by them in 1812.")
But yeah. If no one else uses it, it's pretentious. Apologies, and it won't happen again.
(Just for the sake interest, I think it actually was used by Wright to describe a type of architecture, but that's not really the reason I used it.)
My experience tells me you’d have to search far and wide to find even a handful of Americans who hear it positively. Most, I think, would either wonder what the hell you’re talking about, or would hear it as vaguely disrespectful or insulting.
My experience tells me you’d have to search far and wide to find even a handful of Americans who hear it positively. Most, I think, would either wonder what the hell you’re talking about, or would hear it as vaguely disrespectful or insulting.
Fair enough. And, yeah, I can understand why. Won't use it again.
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
At the end of the day, though, most of those two billion Catholics aren't voting in US elections.
1.4 billion RCs in the world, actually. 267 mil RCs in US are voting age. That is a pretty big chunk. Who's to say how many will turn out for midterms and which way they will vote. Big issues for them is immigration and the war. Leo can sway quite a few of them though he will never endorse any given candidate.
There are about 70 million Catholics in the US*. How can 267 million of them be of voting age?
OOPs. There are 267 mil voters in the US. 52 mil voters are RC but I will still say the Pope will have quite a bit of influence in their vote--he cannot dictate how they vote, but many will listen.
Of course they may not vote at all, and for a disillusioned card-carrying Republican RC that could be a better option than voting Democrat.
See Tucker Carlson for an example of a devout Catholic who hates the war, hates the advisers who he thinks pushed Trump into it, might possibly also hate Trump for listening to those advisers, but will not likely ever vote Democratic for any reason.
Not that every single antiwar Catholic is Tucker Carlson, just an example of how it's more complicated than simply saying "There are X number of Catholics in the USA, and the Pope is now antiwar, therefore...".
Leo XIV fits squarely within the long line of popes who have made peace a defining mark of their ministry — but he does it with a tone, clarity, and geopolitical directness that place him closer to Francis and John Paul II than to earlier, more diplomatically cautious pontiffs.
I think some in the USA imagined that an American pope might be more in tune with their way of thinking. Hes an interesting mixture because he moved back into the Vatican Palace rather than using the basic hotel that Francis preferred, and he has taken to wearing more traditional capes etc when greeting heads of state. But his message is totally in line with Francis. Having been worldwide head of a missionary order he will have travelled to some "interesting" parts of the world, and not as a VIP. That has evidently coloured his visions of what the church should be concerned about.
Leo also regards himself as being a naturalised Peruvian, iirc (I think it was Peru he lived in?).
Yeah. I think Hegseth's church is part of something called the Communion Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an umbrella group founded by Wilson.
It's a denomination with some Presbyterian features.
Technically more Reformed.
Technically a distinction without much difference. “Presbyterian” is simply the British form of what in Continental Europe was called “Reformed.” “Reformed” refers to the theology and ecclesiology, “Presbyterian” refers to the form of government typically used by Reformed churches.
The CREC, as I understand it, claims Presbyterian, Continental Reformed and Reformed Baptist roots. Their doctrinal statements include the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession as well as the (Continental Reformed) Three Forms of Unity.
Presbyterian is the Scottish form of what the Continentals call Reformed. The English form is subsumed into the Congregational and Baptist Heritage.
Yeah. I think Hegseth's church is part of something called the Communion Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, an umbrella group founded by Wilson.
It's a denomination with some Presbyterian features.
Technically more Reformed.
Technically a distinction without much difference. “Presbyterian” is simply the British form of what in Continental Europe was called “Reformed.” “Reformed” refers to the theology and ecclesiology, “Presbyterian” refers to the form of government typically used by Reformed churches.
The CREC, as I understand it, claims Presbyterian, Continental Reformed and Reformed Baptist roots. Their doctrinal statements include the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession as well as the (Continental Reformed) Three Forms of Unity.
Presbyterian is the Scottish form of what the Continentals call Reformed. The English form is subsumed into the Congregational and Baptist Heritage.
Comments
I really do not want to occupy a thread on Pope Leo over the differences between the CREC and mainline Presbyterian polity. Let's just say the the CREC is highly centralized in Doug Wilson. The CREC lacks the robust checks and balances of historical presbyterian system. Moreover, it advocates for patriarchal gender roles and it opposes LGBTQ inclusion
The CREC is a tightly centralized, theologically hard‑right, Christian‑nationalist Reformed community built around Doug Wilson’s leadership, while the PC(USA) is a broad, democratic, mainline Presbyterian denomination committed to social justice, ecumenism, and shared governance.
CREC’s Theological Center of Gravity Is Not Westminster
Even when a CREC congregation adopts Westminster, the denomination’s overall theological culture is shaped by: Federal Vision theology; Postmillennialism; Paedocommunion; Theonomy‑leaning ethics; and, Doug Wilson’s own doctrinal emphases
These positions depart from or stretch traditional Westminster interpretations, especially on: covenant theology; justification and assurance; the sacraments, and the civil magistrate.
This is from the CREC itself.
In England, at least, Congregationalists were considered Reformed too, hence the United Reformed Church.
So they seem very likely to disagree about many things.
And he was probably very well aware of the absence of moral depth to be found in some readers.
Then don’t. Or perhaps this tangent warrants being split into its own thread about the CREC.
@chrisstiles said the nothing about “mainline Presbyterian polity.” He said the CREC is “a denomination with some Presbyterian features.” (My emphasis.) I stand by my statement that in the context of what chrisstiles said, your response of “technically more Reformed” is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
That document is entitled “The CREC is not PRESBTERIAN”—and no one here claimed that it is. The claim was that the CREC “is a denomination with some Presbyterian features,” which that document plainly shows it is. (And note that the example it gives of Presbyterian” is the much more conservative PCA, not the PC(USA).)
Leo XIV fits squarely within the long line of popes who have made peace a defining mark of their ministry — but he does it with a tone, clarity, and geopolitical directness that place him closer to Francis and John Paul II than to earlier, more diplomatically cautious pontiffs.
I think some in the USA imagined that an American pope might be more in tune with their way of thinking. Hes an interesting mixture because he moved back into the Vatican Palace rather than using the basic hotel that Francis preferred, and he has taken to wearing more traditional capes etc when greeting heads of state. But his message is totally in line with Francis. Having been worldwide head of a missionary order he will have travelled to some "interesting" parts of the world, and not as a VIP. That has evidently coloured his visions of what the church should be concerned about.
He won't be the first pope in my lifetime to have been called a heretic or Antichrist by people on the edges of Christianity. Somehow they survived.
There is an issue of the world as it is and as you wish it to be. Some regimes simply won’t take diplomats seriously if they appear - to their eyes - poor. I imagine this problem also applies to the papacy.
I’m deliberately avoiding such discussion forums (having been savaged myself), but I’m not surprised.
That's what normally differentiates denominations in England, not historically so much so in Scotland. Indeed, when it comes to the CofE and the Methodists, that is the core of what differentiates them.
Denominations here seem to be able to tolerate within themselves a wide range of different opinions on theology. It is who can say who else does what, how they are appointed and how things are done which is what they have really come to blows about. To a surprising extent these days, that even applies when it comes to the differences between the Roman Catholics and everybody else.
Tangent ended
Returning to Pope Leo, both he and Pope Francis have been widely respected among non-Catholics in the UK.
On Pope Leo v Hegseth, UK public opinion is generally much more hostile to both Hesgeth and his master than the official line the government is taking. Neither Hesgeth nor Trump do anything to enhance regard or respect for their country by their repeated insults recently of the UK and its military. They have both done this yet again only today. I assume they both think that deprecating other countries shames them and brings them into line. It doesn't seem to occur to them that it is having the opposite effect.
If you are elsewhere, it is best to assume that general public opinion in the UK agrees with Pope Leo on this.
That is an interesting thought. Particularly when dealing with those who judge a person's merit solely by how much money they have, there is value in dressing the part. Some would rather be harmed by the rich than saved by the poor.
When Stalin asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”, he thought he’d ended the conversation.
These days, when someone in Washington starts talking about holy wars and spiritual armies, Pope Leo XIV just smiles and says:
“I still don’t have divisions. But I do have two thousand years of diplomacy, a billion Catholics, and a calendar full of peace conferences.
Trust me—my logistics department is terrifying.”
At the end of the day, though, most of those two billion Catholics aren't voting in US elections.
1.4 billion RCs in the world, actually. 267 mil RCs in US are voting age. That is a pretty big chunk. Who's to say how many will turn out for midterms and which way they will vote. Big issues for them is immigration and the war. Leo can sway quite a few of them though he will never endorse any given candidate.
There are about 70 million Catholics in the US*. How can 267 million of them be of voting age?
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States
Oh, I don't doubt he has some following in the USA. But what percentage of Usonian Catholics would you say fall into the venn overlap of...
...a) willing to vote Democrat, and...
...b) pivot their opinions about foreign-policy exclusively on the Pope's statements?
My own guess is that most of the people in the first category were already opposed to the invasion before the Pope spoke out, and that most of the people in the second won't vote for a party they believe is denounced by the Third Secret Of Fatima.
Sorry. I truly mean it as a positive term. I thought it was a great idea of Frank Lloyd Wright's(yeah yeah, appeal to authority), and will defend its theoretical validity to anyone.
(And just to be clear, I don't regard it as equivalent to "USian", which is an insulting term I've only ever heard from a particularly obnoxious subset of Canadian nationalists, the kinda people who say stuff "Canadians can relate to the victims of USian imperialism in Central America, because we were attacked by them in 1812.")
But yeah. If no one else uses it, it's pretentious. Apologies, and it won't happen again.
(Just for the sake interest, I think it actually was used by Wright to describe a type of architecture, but that's not really the reason I used it.)
Fair enough. And, yeah, I can understand why. Won't use it again.
OOPs. There are 267 mil voters in the US. 52 mil voters are RC but I will still say the Pope will have quite a bit of influence in their vote--he cannot dictate how they vote, but many will listen.
See Tucker Carlson for an example of a devout Catholic who hates the war, hates the advisers who he thinks pushed Trump into it, might possibly also hate Trump for listening to those advisers, but will not likely ever vote Democratic for any reason.
Not that every single antiwar Catholic is Tucker Carlson, just an example of how it's more complicated than simply saying "There are X number of Catholics in the USA, and the Pope is now antiwar, therefore...".
Leo also regards himself as being a naturalised Peruvian, iirc (I think it was Peru he lived in?).
Presbyterian is the Scottish form of what the Continentals call Reformed. The English form is subsumed into the Congregational and Baptist Heritage.
Sorry, but truer.