Calling any non Roman church Protestant is distorted and unfair

[Syele]

That is correct.
That is way I self identify as Roman Catholic or Latin Rite Catholic.
There is only one Holy Catholic Church established by Christ.

So you consider the Orthodox to be Protestant?

 

[bkovacs]

If you are a traditional Anglican why not come back to Rome. The Anglican communion isn’t a communion any more as evidence by the recent events. “Anglicanism started with Henry VIII”. Prior to that the Archbishops of York and Canterbury were Roman Catholic Archbishops, since they were in communion with Rome. Why not come back to the Roman Catholic Church, or does communion with the Patriarch of Rome really have a negative effect your everyday spiritual life. Follow in the footsteps of John Henry Newman.

I am Anglican and we find many things with Evangelical churches very off course with real early church Christianity just as Catholics do, so why should we be lumped together with all other Protestants in your eyes. I believe it is a very self centered act by the Catholic church to deny that others such as ourselves contain just as much tradition as the early church if not more. It is really sad that Catholics don’t consider us Anglicans anywhere more in the realm with themselves as lets say the Jehovas Witnesses. Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

“Protestant” is an umbrella term that encompasses many denominations. Anyone who “protests” the authority of the Church, under the Roman Pontiff, if a Protestant, and that includes Anglicans.

Using this definition, even non-Christians would be classified as protestants. I don’t think this is what you desire to do – at least I hope not.

 

[chevalier]

I am Anglican and we find many things with Evangelical churches very off course with real early church Christianity just as Catholics do, so why should we be lumped together with all other Protestants in your eyes. I believe it is a very self centered act by the Catholic church to deny that others such as ourselves contain just as much tradition as the early church if not more. It is really sad that Catholics don’t consider us Anglicans anywhere more in the realm with themselves as lets say the Jehovas Witnesses. Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.

We do not make any claims that you believe the same Denomination X does unless you do. We do not make claims you believe anything unless you do. We do not make claims you believe something you do not. Classification is a secondary matter to what you believe. Protestant to me is any denomination adhering to the principles of the Reformation and drawing from its doctrines. If you do not draw from the Reformation, you are not protestant by me, not like classification in my eyes matters anything, but I believe this to be the correct one.

At any rate, have you considered coming back to Rome if the Protestant world is not your world? Rome as a metaphor, of course, because it’s not about Rome, it’s about the Catholic Church and communion with the Pope.

 

[Jayda]

hola,

i do not understand why this is considered distorted or unfair… could you please explain a little better?

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

Using this definition, even non-Christians would be classified as protestants. I don’t think this is what you desire to do – at least I hope not.

hola Grace Seeker,

i think this person said this assuming we are already talking about Christians…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Not entirly true:
I was a high church anglican for 9 years, They do not protest “Faith and Good Works” they do not protest “Transubstantiation” and they in a sense do not protest “Sacred Tradition”, they actually believe the Catholic Church is Apostolic as much as all other “traditionalist” churches are. They, like the Orthodox, simply believe that the Pope is not infallible but is still head of a valid church of christ. In fact they believe they have apostolic sucession ALONG with the church of rome, because they believe when they seperated it was something like what happened with the orthodox.

They believed that the Reformation allowed all churches even slightly decendant of rome to remain “Apostolic” and even “Catholic”(and therefore universal), hence they actually call themselves “Anglo-Catholic” and accept all christian denominations as fully functioning Christian, it is this doctrine which allows the compete Anglican Church expansive doctrines ranging from very Catholic, to very protestant.

High Church Anglicanism is so close to Catholocism it isn’t funny, in fact it’s rather stupid. They should just recognise the Pope and rejoin the church.

Many Catholics come to the table thinking the High Church or Anglo-Catholic (”7-sacramenters”) parties represent a historic line of thinking that goes back to the original schism, often presenting the Anglicans as seperate from Protestants. While in fact they DO often share (in broader fashions than we would like to think or hope) Catholic sensibilities, these parties no more represent a historic reality in the Anglican Communion, than the minor “High Church” parties found in Lutheranism (like the Church of Sweden) or Methodism (like the “Order of St. Luke”).

Of course the modern day similarities of Anglo-Catholic parties in Anglicanism or “Continuing Anglicanism” are strong. Sad to say, but some of those parishes look more Catholic than the local RC parish…

Having said that, when you look at the history of the Anglican communion, the Anglo Catholic movement is about 160 years old or so. It is rooted in the Oxford/Tractarian movement and was a “restorationist” movement.

Well what did the restorationists come from? A very protestant “low church” community… in time they slowly developped and added to thier liturgical practice and devotional life to look more and more “Catholic” in the style of the Roman Church.

(They started with the BCP - book of common prayer - which is a much expurgated version of the old Sarum Missal. It is interesting to note, the changes made in its translation, revision, and publication point to a decidedly Protestant view of the sacraments, most notably the Eucharist.)

I guess the Catholic can look at this and ask, how does this make Anglo-Catholicism historically Catholic? Following its model, if Methodists should start to do the same - use the Roman sacramentary and develop a “seven sacrament” theology, how Catholic would we consider this to be?

 

[rtconstant]

Well technically speaking the Anglican Church, along with the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches are one of the original Protestant Churches. In fact it is arguably the most historically influential Protestant Church. The evangelical movement more or less sprang from Anglican roots.

However, don’t worry most Catholics understand that there are major differences between Mainline protestants (Lutheran, Anglican) and evangelical churches. In fact it is ironic that today the conservative Anglicans and Lutherans today have much more in common with the Catholic Church than their Protestant brothers.

Anyway, I pray for the day when all those terms are obsolete.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

However, don’t worry most Catholics understand that there are major differences between Mainline protestants (Lutheran, Anglican) and evangelical churches. In fact it is ironic that today the conservative Anglicans and Lutherans today have much more in common with the Catholic Church than their Protestant brothers…

Conversely, Evangelicals frequently share a more Catholic view of other matters like scriptural inerrancy. Their conclusions might be widely divergent, but we simply haven’t seen the widescale acceptance on the part of large Evangelical bodies of such things as “higher scriptural criticism”…

It is telling (though I do not have the statistics) how very many of the new-converts of the Catholic Church who are coming in from non-Catholic bodies (where they were active) are in fact Evangelical rather than mainline liturgical.

 

[rtconstant]

Conversely, Evangelicals frequently share a more Catholic view of other matters like scriptural inerrancy. Their conclusions might be widely divergent, but we simply haven’t seen the widescale acceptance on the part of large Evangelical bodies of such things as “higher scriptural criticism”…

It is telling (though I do not have the statistics) how very many of the new-converts of the Catholic Church who are coming in from non-Catholic bodies (where they were active) are in fact Evangelical rather than mainline liturgical.

You know that’s a very good point. I hadn’t thought of it in that way. I myself converted from the SBC. Very interesting.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by Syele
So you consider the Orthodox to be Protestant?

Good question!
No, I don’t consider them protestants. They fall into a sort of purgative state to my way of thinking. They do not recognize The Pope as the head of their church but also do not adhere to the heresys of the 16th century that spawned protestantism.
In any case, they are certainly one of the reasons I self identify as a Latin Rite Catholic.
I have been told (by a nun, no less) that I may receive Holy
Communion in one of their churches. But I would not do that because of them not being in union and communion with Rome.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

So you consider the Orthodox to be Protestant?

No. That is a false dichotomy in the idea that ANYone who is not Catholic is protestant.

In Catholic thinking there are TWO types of christian bodies: Churches & ecclesial communions.

A church is possessed of 7 valid sacraments (as the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, Assyrians & [some] Old Catholics [like the PNCC] are).

Ecclesial communities are the rest.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace Seeker;2039376:

“Protestant” is an umbrella term that encompasses many denominations. Anyone who “protests” the authority of the Church, under the Roman Pontiff, if [sic]
a Protestant, and that includes Anglicans.

Using this definition, even non-Christians would be classified as protestants. I don’t think this is what you desire to do – at least I hope not.

hola Grace Seeker,

i think this person said this assuming we are already talking about Christians…

que Dios te bendiga

Which is why I called the post into question. S/he may have been making that assumption, but it wasn’t clearly stated. I’ve seen some in this forum refer to groups that I would hesitate to call Christian (e.g. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) as Protestants, and think that a perhaps a little more clarity is needed. Even given that which I appreciate you adding, we still have the following confusion:

So you consider the Orthodox to be Protestant?

No. That is a false dichotomy in the idea that ANYone who is not Catholic is protestant.

In Catholic thinking there are TWO types of christian bodies: Churches & ecclesial communions.

A church is possessed of 7 valid sacraments (as the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, Assyrians & [some] Old Catholics [like the PNCC] are).

Ecclesial communities are the rest.

I think this last poster is more helpful in clarifying the differences. Then some of those that the Roman Catholic Church would classify as ecclesial communities are Protestant groups because they were formed in protest. There are other groups that formed without giving any regard to any prior bodies. These groups could hardly be described as Protestant (for that are not protesting), but perhaps as restorationist.

 

[Montalban]

I am Anglican and we find many things with Evangelical churches very off course with real early church Christianity just as Catholics do, so why should we be lumped together with all other Protestants in your eyes. I believe it is a very self centered act by the Catholic church to deny that others such as ourselves contain just as much tradition as the early church if not more. It is really sad that Catholics don’t consider us Anglicans anywhere more in the realm with themselves as lets say the Jehovas Witnesses. Very sad that we can’t consider each other at least somewhat in focus together.

Sorry if this is already been dealt with.

You’re church was established in protest against the Catholic church - specifically in the fact that Henry VIII wanted a divorce that the Church would not grant.

Protestantism *is *indeed a very diverse category, but it is accurate.

Look at the word “republic” it can span from a democracy like France to a dictatorship like pre-war Iraq.

However the title of this thread drew me to it because there are many non-Catholic churches that are not Protestant and it would be wrong to call them such.
e.g.
The Coptic Church
The Orthodox Church
The Nestorian Church

and it would be debateable if you called any successors of the Cathars (if there are any) “Protestant” as they stem from the gnostics, in part

 

[Montalban]

I tend to use the term non-Catholic Christians these days.

That’s even more broad that Protestant.

And it is also vague as the non-Catholic-non-Protestant churches don’t share a lot with the non-Catholic-Protestant churches

 

[ALLFORHIM]

IMHO the division God sees is people who believe in Christ and people who don’t.Believrs and unbelievers are everywhere in every denom and in every religion and in every church, temple, synogogue etc. Us humans are the ones who add all these divisions.:twocents:

Let’s have a group hug :grouphug:

 

[Jayda]

Which is why I called the post into question. S/he may have been making that assumption, but it wasn’t clearly stated. I’ve seen some in this forum refer to groups that I would hesitate to call Christian (e.g. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) as Protestants, and think that a perhaps a little more clarity is needed. Even given that which I appreciate you adding, we still have the following confusion:

hola Grace Seeker,

i do not mean to sound mean but from a Catholic perspective i do not think we can seriously differenciate between mormons, jw and protestants…

i know what you are trying to say, but you seem to prioritize not committing heresy (the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith) over not committing schism (the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff)… according to the Canon law at 751 heresy, apostacy and schism are all very grave, the absence of one does not absolve somebody of committing the others.

mormons, jw and other groups like these that you consider different from you in schism, just like the other protestants and Orthodox are in schism.

but on top of this as you noted mormons and jw believe in certain heresies other protestants reject, that push them even further from the Church… but other protestants like methodists and presbyterians believe in heresies too… rejecting transubstantiation is one example.

the Church considers these heresies and the issue of schism to be very serious, and not something that can be set aside. the Church as far as i know has never ranked the “importance” of these kinds of sins, we are simply taught that they are very bad. i think the reason for this is so that people cannot downplay the importance of adhering to the Church Christ founded or the teachings of that Church.

so… like, i understand what you are saying… from your perspective you believe mormons and jw to be bad in a different or worse way because they reject central tenets of your faith. but i think since the Canon is so clear about heresy and schism, Catholics could only really view JW and Mormons as the continuation of a downward trend begun with Luther. since all that is important is to know is to avoid the heresies and schisms begun by Luther, there is no further need to differenciate between them… also from a practical standpoint we would be spending more time learning about protestantism than Catholicism if we gave that level of attention to every last protestant denomination…

I think this last poster is more helpful in clarifying the differences. Then some of those that the Roman Catholic Church would classify as ecclesial communities are Protestant groups because they were formed in protest. There are other groups that formed without giving any regard to any prior bodies. These groups could hardly be described as Protestant (for that are not protesting), but perhaps as restorationist.

i do not think we could call certain groups restorationist because they are not restoring anything, the Church is the original christian Church begun by Jesus…

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

That’s even more broad that Protestant.

And it is also vague as the non-Catholic-non-Protestant churches don’t share a lot with the non-Catholic-Protestant churches

hola Montalban,

i agree… the Church makes a distinction in the catechism in its relationship between differen denominations… one of those distinctions is between the Orthodox and another is between the Protestants, i think for example we do not believe they have committed heresy, only schism, while most protestants have done both…

so the Church says that there are differences in “closeness” to the Church… the Orthodox are closer to the Church than the Protestants but the Church does not go on to differenciate between Protestant groups… so… we should not lump everybody into one category when the Church does otherwise…

Dominus Vobiscum

 

[rr1213]

hola Montalban,

i agree… the Church makes a distinction in the catechism in its relationship between differen denominations… one of those distinctions is between the Orthodox and another is between the Protestants, i think for example we do not believe they have committed heresy, only schism, while most protestants have done both…

so the Church says that there are differences in “closeness” to the Church… the Orthodox are closer to the Church than the Protestants but the Church does not go on to differenciate between Protestant groups… so… we should not lump everybody into one category when the Church does otherwise…

Dominus Vobiscum

So, to deny Papal Supremacy is not heresy in the eyes of the Church? That’s what the Orthodox do…

 

[Jayda]

So, to deny Papal Supremacy is not heresy in the eyes of the Church? That’s what the Orthodox do…

hola,

it is not heresy it is schism:
Can. 751:

Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

but my point was that the canon law treats these three things as all very bad, it does not prioritise some as worse than others… so it is not okay to be a heretic as long as you are not schismatic (cafeteria catholics), it is not okay to be schismatic as long as you are not heretical (the orthodox) and it is not okay to be schismatic and heretical as long as you do not commit apostacy (most protestants).

que Dios te bendiga