Any One Else Noticed Protestants Calling Themselves 'catholic'?

[manualman]

If the men’s group was supposed to be a non-denominational gathering, then the preacher WAS way out of line lecturing the group about his particular denomination’s rationale for explaining what ‘catholic church’ means. Such a setting calls for an explanation of differing views of the terms or no discussion of them at all. On the other hand, if you were simply attending a group at this fellow’s congregation, it’s not reasonable to expect him to tiptoe around for you.

As others have mentioned, this all revolves around how myopic a particular protestant group happens to be about their version of “Sola Scriptura.” If they’ve gone so far as to toss out any value to any creed, then I’d not expect them to want to appropriate the term “catholic.” If, however, they as a collective have tried to comprehend Christianity earlier than Luther (but after the death of St. John), then they really almost can’t help but try to contrive a way to appropriate the words “catholic and apostolic” into their own ecclesiology. To NOT try to, is to admit defeat and admit that their vision of church isn’t what the apostle’s creed refers to. You can be sad that they’ve wiggled around it, but you shouldn’t be angry.

 

[GKC]

Calling oneself Catholic is quite common amongst the Episcopalians. They also claim to be right on the edge of union with Rome…all the while having female Clergy!!!

Not all of them make that particular error.

GKC

 

[Veedar]

Hey all,

Before I open here I will share something with you. I am in attendance at a men’s substance use recovery ‘retreat’ of sorts, it is ‘faith based’. Every Sunday we go to different churches, but they are always of Protestant denomination (Baptist, etc).

Well today at a ‘Calvalry Baptist Church’ it opened up with the usual koom-bah-yah, along with some open prayer for various infirmities and illnesses.

Then came the sermon…

The tract revolved around how all Christians who believe in the full truth of the Gospel are part of the ‘one.holy.catholic.apostolic.church’. This is how Jesus intended it. Then how no one is more holy than others, catholic is merely universal for the invisible/visible ‘church’, all Christians are inheritors of ‘apostolic tradition’.

As all of this was being said I was trying to pray and rub the Crucifix on my Rosary that I keep around my neck (but underneath my shirt).

Then the rub…"…but apostolic isn’t about Popes or succession or bishops…" At this point my spirit started to get very angry and on the way out I would not shake the pastor’s hand.

I guess my question is; is my anger misplaced? Should I just love them for the bit’s of true Christendom that they do adhere to and ignore heresy?

I only have two more days left before I start RCIA. Please pray for me and the guidance that Fr. Alfredo will bring to me. I cannot wait to be in the bosom of the Church.

In Christ,

James

If they are validly baptized, then they are Catholics individually, but they are not yet in full communion with the Church.

 

[RichWh1]

Calling oneself Catholic is quite common amongst the Episcopalians. They also claim to be right on the edge of union with Rome…all the while having female Clergy!!!

A Christian calling themselves ‘catholic’ simply means they believe the church of Jesus is universal and salvation is also universal. ‘katholikos’ meaning universal.

Those who call themselves Catholic usually refer to a denomination and not universality of all believers.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Might also be that since you are in the process of converting (at least in RCIA), you might be more aware than you were previously. Sort of like if you are thinking about buying a certain type of car you suddenly notice how many of them are out there.

 

[kathmandu]

Calling oneself Catholic is quite common amongst the Episcopalians. They also claim to be right on the edge of union with Rome…all the while having female Clergy!!!

We also say the Creed at Mass, and always have. Our meaning of catholic is the universal one. We believe we are all part of the “Body of Christ” which makes us, and other Christians catholic. Notice we are not calling ourselves “Roman Catholic” which means the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[robwar]

Hey all,

Before I open here I will share something with you. I am in attendance at a men’s substance use recovery ‘retreat’ of sorts, it is ‘faith based’. Every Sunday we go to different churches, but they are always of Protestant denomination (Baptist, etc).

Well today at a ‘Calvalry Baptist Church’ it opened up with the usual koom-bah-yah, along with some open prayer for various infirmities and illnesses.

Then came the sermon…

The tract revolved around how all Christians who believe in the full truth of the Gospel are part of the ‘one.holy.catholic.apostolic.church’. This is how Jesus intended it. Then how no one is more holy than others, catholic is merely universal for the invisible/visible ‘church’, all Christians are inheritors of ‘apostolic tradition’.

As all of this was being said I was trying to pray and rub the Crucifix on my Rosary that I keep around my neck (but underneath my shirt).

Then the rub…"…but apostolic isn’t about Popes or succession or bishops…" At this point my spirit started to get very angry and on the way out I would not shake the pastor’s hand.

I guess my question is; is my anger misplaced? Should I just love them for the bit’s of true Christendom that they do adhere to and ignore heresy?

I only have two more days left before I start RCIA. Please pray for me and the guidance that Fr. Alfredo will bring to me. I cannot wait to be in the bosom of the Church.

In Christ,

James

I grew up Methodist and as part of their liturgy at that time we recited the Apostles creed which ended in “one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church”. It was explained at that time that catholic is the word for universal and it was taken as such not meaning Roman Catholic Church. I think your anger is misplaced because I am sure they took the phrase from the apostles creed which they probably believe in or claim too whether they fully understand all that is implied in it’s meaning. Not shaking the pastor hand over this is rather rude. Sometimes Catholics can get on a high horse and think that how dare they use this phrase etc but look that this is a door or connection with our Protestant separated brothers and sisters and any door or connection is good not bad. Instead of getting mad and being rude in not shaking the pastor’s hand it would have been better to point out where the phrase came from, it’s history and how good that even in a Calvary Baptist Church, they are using historic Catholic Christian creeds and ideas.

 

[GKC]

And I am Marie of Romania.

Sorry, that wasn’t very charitable.

No, but I love the quatrain.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Pythons]

The Seventh-day Adventists consider themselves the true catholic church…
…Their reasoning for this is that they claim to keep all the commandments.
…And promulgate both “the creature christ doctrine” & “God the Father has a body of flesh”.

docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19810305-V158-10__B.pdf#search=%22 truly catholic organization %22&view=fit
Page 3 under the heading “Thank Offering”

The convention concluded with a banquet in which Robert Muller, associate secretary of the United Nations, was the featured speaker. He is called the United Nations’ “prophet of hope” and has a vibrant and optimistic philosophy of life. His wife, Margarita, accompanied him, and they discovered that there is another universal and truly catholic organization, the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

 

[manualman]

We also say the Creed at Mass, and always have. Our meaning of catholic is the universal one. We believe we are all part of the “Body of Christ” which makes us, and other Christians catholic. Notice we are not calling ourselves “Roman Catholic” which means the Roman Catholic Church.

“Roman Catholic” is a phrase made up by protestants in order to create the pretend distinction you refer to. Before the so called reformation, it didn’t exist. Before the 16th century, all Christians understood that the church is visible, invisible and not divisible from the See of Peter. Even the Eastern Orthodox don’t really object to the primacy of Peter’s see, they just attempt to reduce that primacy to mere figurehead status. Catholic always meant a unity both formal and supernatural.

And even in protestant context, it’s not accurate. The Byzantine Catholic Church is fully in union with the Catholic Church, but if you call one of those guys a “Roman Catholic” they will pop you one. The blunt truth is that you guys redefined the word to permit a requisition of all the ancient texts without the unpleasantly Herculean task of actually reconciling with the universal church, the catholic church.

 

[SteveVH]

We also say the Creed at Mass, and always have. Our meaning of catholic is the universal one. We believe we are all part of the “Body of Christ” which makes us, and other Christians catholic. Notice we are not calling ourselves “Roman Catholic” which means the Roman Catholic Church.

This is all very interesting but I am noticing a trend. There seems to be an effort to muddy the waters as to what the word “Catholic” with a capital “C” actually means. No one will argue that “catholic” means universal. But the Church was called “Catholic” as a proper name within the first century.

Here is a portion of the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans which was written around 110 AD and references the “Catholic Church” with no explanation, indicating that the term was in common useage before he wrote the letter:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

The word “Catholic” was used to draw a distinction between the Apostolic Church with validly ordained bishops as opposed to any splinter groups in existence at the time.

So those who wish to co-opt the name “Catholic” while rejecting, to various degrees, the Church which was first called Catholic, seems to be a little disingenuous to me. The fact that the Catholic Church is not restricted to the Latin rite does not mean that anyone and everyone can then lay claim to the name, as if, for instance, “Evangelical Catholic” is just as valid a term as “Coptic” or “Maronite” or “Chaldean” Catholics. “Evangelical Catholics” are Lutherans, plain and simple, and most take great pride in their differences with the Catholic Church. As long as this is the case there can be no true unity and therefore those denominations who broke with the Catholic Church have no real right to call themselves Catholic at all. The same principal would apply to any denomination for the simple fact that they broke away from the “Catholic Church”.

 

[lerapt78]

Not exactly. Rather, the claim would be (in its strongest form) that you are only part of the whole Church but claim to be the whole. (Anti-Catholic Protestants might claim that you are no longer truly part of the Church at all, and the most intelligent and historically rooted version of that claim would locate the apostasy at Trent, preceded by a long period of “obscuring of the Gospel” in the later Middle Ages.)

This suggestion, tied in with manualman’s statement,

If, however, they as a collective have tried to comprehend Christianity earlier than Luther (but after the death of St. John), then they really almost can’t help but try to contrive a way to appropriate the words “catholic and apostolic” into their own ecclesiology.

helps to shed light on why they (Baptists) would use the term. As I understand it, some Baptists will not even call themselves Protestant because to do so would suggest a tie to Lutheranism, which they see as only a schismatic departure of what they consider to be the “corrupted” Roman Catholic Church. So, in essence, Baptists and other Evangelicals consider themselves to be the true and original Catholic Church (until the Romans corrupted it) - is that correct?

(I’m not being snide, I’m trying to gain a clearer understanding due to the different interpretations that come out of the Evangelical movement)

I have also heard of Baptists calling themselves “Reform Baptists”, to which others will criticize them because it implies too much of a similarity with Protestantism. Again, without a sole authoritative interpreter for the religion, one can see how clear understanding is made difficult.

Protestants did for centuries use the term “Catholic” of themselves, and they called Catholics “Papists” or “Romanists.” Those terms are now considered rude. So don’t abuse the courtesy of Protestants by basing an ecclesiological claim on it. You can’t in one breath (as many folks do on these forums) insist that even “Roman Catholic” is rude and then in the next breath make Augustine’s argument (which wasn’t Augustine’s finest moment in the first place and is even less applicable today) about asking the nearest stranger the way to the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding. Are you saying that Protestants always called themselves Catholic - even after the Reformation - and then, once the Reformation was complete, they changed the name of Roman Catholics to simply “Romanists” and “Papists”? Doesn’t this suggest that somewhere along the way, those in schism with Rome decided to remove the description “Catholic” from “Roman Catholics”? That they decided at one point (in the 16th century, perhaps) that those who had always called themselves Catholic (Roman) were never really Catholic at all and therefore they would take the term away from them?

I don’t find anything rude about the term “Roman Catholic”, lol - who would find that offensive?? The reference to different churches is merely an example of how every Catholic church will have a clear sign on it calling itself that. It’s also a fact that Protestant churches are marked by their denominations. There’s nothing challenging about making that observation, even if there are exceptions to it.

The Enlightenment did change things for many Protestants, indeed. But the older practice was to claim the label “Catholic.” And this was revived in the 19th century.

Edwin

Could you refer me to some writings which showed how the term progressed? From retainment the original claim, the subsequent departure from it for differentiation purposes, then the re-adoption of the identifier “Catholic”?

 

[SteveVH]

This is all very interesting but I am noticing a trend. There seems to be an effort to muddy the waters as to what the word “Catholic” with a capital “C” actually means. No one will argue that “catholic” means universal. But the Church was called “Catholic” as a proper name within the first century.

Here is a portion of the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans which was written around 110 AD and references the “Catholic Church” with no explanation, indicating that the term was in common useage before he wrote the letter:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

The word “Catholic” was used to draw a distinction between the Apostolic Church with validly ordained bishops as opposed to any splinter groups in existence at the time.

So those who wish to co-opt the name “Catholic” while rejecting, to various degrees, the Church which was first called Catholic, seems to be a little disingenuous to me. The fact that the Catholic Church is not restricted to the Latin rite does not mean that anyone and everyone can then lay claim to the name, as if, for instance, “Evangelical Catholic” is just as valid a term as “Coptic” or “Maronite” or “Chaldean” Catholics. “Evangelical Catholics” are Lutherans, plain and simple, and most take great pride in their differences with the Catholic Church. As long as this is the case there can be no true unity and therefore those denominations who broke with the Catholic Church have no real right to call themselves Catholic at all. The same principal would apply to any denomination for the simple fact that they broke away from the “Catholic Church”.

---

“Let the time come when those who should oblige the servant of God, do the contrary to him, and what degree of patience and humility he has then, that is the degree he has and no more.” - St. Francis of Assisi

 

[steido01]

“Evangelical Catholic” is a very modern term which neither the founder of that denomination nor its early adherents would ever have used.

This is flat-out wrong. The Lutheran Reformers preferred to call themselves either Christian or Evangelical Catholics to emphasize their insistence on Gospel, rather than submission to Rome; there is nothing modern about it. Dr. Martin Luther in “Admonition Against Insurrection,” 1522:

I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master. Matt. 23:8.

More info available here: lutherquest.org/walther/articles/nameLuth.htm

 

[SteveVH]

This is flat-out wrong. The Lutheran Reformers preferred to call themselves either Christian or Evangelical Catholics to emphasize their insistence on Gospel, rather than submission to Rome; there is nothing modern about it. Dr. Martin Luther in “Admonition Against Insurrection,” 1522:

“I ask that my name be left silent and people not call themselves Lutheran, but rather Christians. Who is Luther? The doctrine is not mine. I have been crucified for no one. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 3:4-5 would not suffer that the Christians should call themselves of Paul or of Peter, but Christian. How should I, a poor stinking bag of worms, become so that the children of Christ are named with my unholy name? It should not be dear friends. Let us extinguish all factious names and be called Christians whose doctrine we have. The pope’s men rightly have a factious name because they are not satisfied with the doctrine and name of Christ and want to be with the pope, who is their master. I have not been and will not be a master. Along with the church I have the one general teaching of Christ who alone is our master.”

And where does this say anything about Lutherans calling themselves “Evangelical Catholic”?

 

[JonNC]

This is flat-out wrong. The Lutheran Reformers preferred to call themselves either Christian or Evangelical Catholics to emphasize their insistence on Gospel, rather than submission to Rome; there is nothing modern about it. Dr. Martin Luther in “Admonition Against Insurrection,” 1522:

More info available here: lutherquest.org/walther/articles/nameLuth.htm

Additionally, the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession states unequivocally; *Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. *

They clearly saw themselves as Catholic.

Jon

 

[lerapt78]

“Evangelical Catholics” are Lutherans, plain and simple, and most take great pride in their differences with the Catholic Church. As long as this is the case there can be no true unity and therefore those denominations who broke with the Catholic Church have no real right to call themselves Catholic at all. The same principal would apply to any denomination for the simple fact that they broke away from the “Catholic Church”.

Following that train of adjective appropriation, Catholics could very well call themselves “Evangelicals”, because we do (and always have), in fact, evangelize. However, if one identifies himself as an Evangelical, it brings up an immediate picture to the person who hears it (believes in Sola Scriptura, “once saved always saved”, may or may not be baptized), etc.

To me, this thread is dealing with two different subjects: using the word “Catholic” as an emotive adjective to describe feeling a call to universalism (common brotherhood in the belief in Jesus Christ and therefore in a figurative sense), and using the term “Catholic” in the technical sense, as a formal religious title which implies historical continuity and adherence to specific doctrine.

 

[steido01]

I’m not sure if I’m understanding. Are you saying that Protestants always called themselves Catholic - even after the Reformation -

Some of us still do, even to this day. Many of us even pray for our fellow Christians and the the Bishop of Rome.

and then, once the Reformation was complete,

Complete, eh? Another thread.

they changed the name of Roman Catholics to simply “Romanists” and “Papists”? Doesn’t this suggest that somewhere along the way, those in schism with Rome decided to remove the description “Catholic” from “Roman Catholics”? That they decided at one point (in the 16th century, perhaps) that those who had always called themselves Catholic (Roman) were never really Catholic at all and therefore they would take the term away from them?

About the term “Roman Catholic,” see Contarini’s explanation. He is very well-learned. Regarding who is and is not Catholic from a protestant perspective… Lutherans, at least, never denied that the Catholic Church continues in Rome, or in other places. What Lutheranism did/does say, however, is that the Catholic faith is obscured, in part, by some Roman dogmas.

I don’t find anything rude about the term “Roman Catholic”, lol - who would find that offensive??

Your forebears from the 1500’s. The implications associated with words - and often the meaning of the words themselves - change over time.

 

[SteveVH]

Following that train of adjective appropriation, Catholics could very well call themselves “Evangelicals”, because we do (and always have), in fact, evangelize. However, if one identifies himself as an Evangelical, it brings up an immediate picture to the person who hears it (believes in Sola Scriptura, “once saved always saved”, may or may not be baptized), etc.

To me, this thread is dealing with two different subjects: using the word “Catholic” as an emotive adjective to describe feeling a call to universalism (common brotherhood in the belief in Jesus Christ and therefore in a figurative sense), and using the term “Catholic” in the technical sense, as a formal religious title which implies historical continuity and adherence to specific doctrine.

Exactly.

 

[JonNC]

=lerapt78;11391210]Following that train of adjective appropriation, Catholics could very well call themselves “Evangelicals”, because we do (and always have), in fact, evangelize. However, if one identifies himself as an Evangelical, it brings up an immediate picture to the person who hears it (believes in Sola Scriptura, “once saved always saved”, may or may not be baptized), etc.

The problem is that “evangelical” in the historic sense is neither about evangelizing, nor is it about the Reformed/Calvinist movement. Evangelical, as the Lutheran reformers used it, means of or pertaining to the gospel. So, you might well link sola scriptura to the term (in the historic Lutheran sense), but not OSAS or an Anabaptist notion about the sacrament of Baptism, as Lutheranism rejects both.

But this does bring us to the use of the term “Evangelical Catholic” by Lutherans. Lutheranism is unique among those labeled as protestant, along with Anglicanism, in that we are a sacramental Church. We view the sacraments of Baptism, Confession/Absolution, and the Eucharist as means of grace, that bring forgiveness of sins. We recognize and confess the three ancient creeds of the Church, and therefore recognize one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

To me, this thread is dealing with two different subjects: using the word “Catholic” as an emotive adjective to describe feeling a call to universalism (common brotherhood in the belief in Jesus Christ and therefore in a figurative sense), and using the term “Catholic” in the technical sense, as a formal religious title which implies historical continuity and adherence to specific doctrine.

The Lutheran reformers, I believe, would have thought of Catholic in both senses, as they believed that the confessions were and are in continuity with the early Church.

Jon