Calling any non Roman church Protestant is distorted and unfair

[GKC]

My guess is that if you all get maybe 8 or 10 centuries of unity under your belts, you will get what you are asking for.

But it’s just too hard to figure out who’s who. How could we possibly know the Anglican “tree” and which branch an Anglican is part of?

Anyway, there are a few (real deal Catholic) Anglican Rite use parishes around the country. How do you compare with them? Is everything pretty much “Catholic” except for the pope thing?

There’s a sola fide debate between John Martignoni and a (former Catholic) Anglican minister on biblechristiansociety.com. The debate is pretty good. But the Anglican minister could not possibly sound more protestant.

I’ve never had an Anglican (of any stripe, to my knowledge) approach me with hatred toward Catholicism.

How 'bout we Catholics agree to stop bleeding England dry and let Henry VIII marry whoever he wants, and you guys agree to shut Elton John up? Then can we get back to normal?

Best offer I’ve heard this week, myself.

GKC

 

[mark_a]

Muslims also profess belief in Christ.

You didn’t ask me, but. . . . . .

Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God. This is what Christians mean when they

profess belief in Christ

Right or wrong, there is no comparison.

 

[Researcher]

I think traveler asks a good question. Why do Catholics tend to lump all other denominations together as being protestant when the protestant group is highly diverse in their theologies? This question however does not have nor will it have an official answer. I can only provide my thoughts on the question.

To begin with there must be only one truth. This takes us back to the discussion betwen Jesus and Pilate. What is Truth? When we look at Christianity today from the outside the answer to this question appears quite difficult to find. Every denomination will claim that they have the truth. And in part, that is true. They do posess some of the truth. But since there are so many protestant denominations some must have some errors. Logically this must be so. That is, none of the protestants have the fullness of truth.

Now this is not to be confused with the very clear fact that there are very many protestants of any various number of denominations that are as convinced in Jesus as the son of God and that He is our savior. My point is that the thology they preach is deficient.

One key point, among many, is that Jesus did quite clearly establish an authority among his disciples. This authroity is Peter. Yes, it gets back to the old pope story. The concept of authority will forever be the stumbling block for Christian unity just as it was with Adam and Eve in the garden. Adam and Eve rejected the authority of God. The Hebrews rejected the authroity of Moses in the desert. Judas and the Jewish leaders rejected the authroity of Jesus. Heratics rejected the teaching authority of the pope and early church leaders. It is really no different with Luther, King Henry VIII, Zwingly or others. The only way to Christian unity is through the authority that resides in the RCC. That is why Anglicans are grouped together with all other protestants.

Who can conceive of another avenue to Christian unity that will retain the fullness of faith passed on by Jesus?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You didn’t ask me, but. . . . . .

Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God. This is what Christians mean when they

profess belief in Christ

I agree with that. Which is why a Jehovah’s Witness could not be considered a Christian either.

But if a Jehovah’s Witness is considered a Protestant, then this means that the Roman Catholic Church is labeling some non-Christians as Protestants, and this is what I am objecting to.

 

[kangnamdragon]

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. .

Because Henry VIII was PROTESTING.

 

[mark_a]

But if a Jehovah’s Witness is considered a Protestant

I don’t know the official “labelling system” of of the “Roman” Catholic Church, but I’ve heard Catholic Apologists refer to these groups who don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, theTrinity, etc. as quasi-Christian. It’s not meant as an insult, but as a way of distinguishing these groups from Protestants.

then this means that the Roman Catholic Church is labeling some non-Christians as Protestants, and this is what I am objecting to

Honestly, I think it’s the American secular society that lumps Christianity into Catholic and Protestant. Pretty much leaving out Orthodoxy.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Because Henry VIII was PROTESTING.

I think Henry VIII was primarily lusting. He threw a tantrum, took his ball (the Church in England) and went home to play with by himself (and also rename it the Church of England). Maybe those of us who are decendents of historic event should be called Tantrumants instead of Protestants?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I don’t know the official “labelling system” of of the “Roman” Catholic Church, but I’ve heard Catholic Apologists refer to these groups who don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, theTrinity, etc. as quasi-Christian. It’s not meant as an insult, but as a way of distinguishing these groups from Protestants.

And that satisfies me as well. This is partly about my own beliefs, but I would think that even the Roman Catholic Church would want to be careful with these terms, and not throw them around loosely. Doing so is to yoke non-Christians with the body of Christ, and I just think this is wrong.

By labeling something that is non-Christian as Protestant instead of quasi-Christian or some other moniker which distinguishes those that are relatively closer to Catholicism from those that are relatively farther, one is practicing a teaching function of the church with respect to people outside of the Roman Catholic faith. And thus people see that there are problems with being non-Catholic, but no bigger problem with being Mormon or JW or Muslim or Jew than any other form of non-Catholic. So, if the person I am thinking about marrying isn’t Catholic, but my sister married a Lutheran and was still accepted in the life and community of the local church, and the priest only said something once and beyond that no one questioned the kids being raised as non-Catholic, then maybe it wouldn’t be such a big deal to marry a non-Catholic myself. But that person doesn’t marry a Christian non-Catholic, they are attracted to a non-Christian non-Catholic whom eventually they marry, perhaps convert and raise their children as not only non-Catholics, but non-Christians.

 

[GKC]

I think Henry VIII was primarily lusting. He threw a tantrum, took his ball (the Church in England) and went home to play with by himself (and also rename it the Church of England). Maybe those of us who are decendents of historic event should be called Tantrumants instead of Protestants?

Hormonal Hank was secondarily lusting. He was primarily seeking a secure dynasty, in the form of a legitimate male heir. It was all the rage, at the time.

And his case was reasonably strong. Not the case he insisted on offering as his causa, that the original dispensation that Julius had given, to allow him to marry Catherine in the first place, was ultra vires, beyond Papal authority, due to the Levitical prohibitions, but rather because of the likely involvement of an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty in the whole thing.

At any rate, what Henry was doing was precisely what the impediment/dispensation/annulment system was set up to permit at the time; the making and breaking of marriages for dynastic reasons, while still maintaining the sacrament of marriage. Everybody did it (his sister’s annulment at the same time was a great story), and it was getting so far out of hand that Trent had to rein it in. Hank had a typically strong case, in comparision. Not as strong as Charles V, though.

GKC

 

[mark_a]

And that satisfies me as well. This is partly about my own beliefs, but I would think that even the Roman Catholic Church would want to be careful with these terms, and not throw them around loosely. Doing so is to yoke non-Christians with the body of Christ, and I just think this is wrong.

Hey, did you know Pope Benedict’s cousin is a JW?

Anyway, I think the parable of the Good Samaritan warns us not to get too “Holier than thou”.

but I would think that even the Roman Catholic Church would want to be careful with these terms, and not throw them around loosely.

Hope you don’t mind, but speaking of throwing around labels loosely, the Church headed by the Pope is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. “Roman” Catholic is a term brought about, oddly enough, by Anglicans who wanted to differentiate themselves from Catholics still loyal to the Pope after the whole Henry VIII thing.

The pope is, however, the bishop of Rome.

Not a biggie though, lots of non-Catholics call us bead mumblers.

 

[mark_a]

And his case was reasonably strong. Not the case he insisted on offering as his causa, that the original dispensation that Julius had given, to allow him to marry Catherine in the first place, was ultra vires, beyond Papal authority, due to the Levitical prohibitions, but rather because of the likely involvement of an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty in the whole thing.

Hello,
Could you explain the above, ten commandment style?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Hey, did you know Pope Benedict’s cousin is a JW?

No, I did not. My great grandfather was also. Have all of his books from back then. Interesting to see how JW theology has changed. They used to predict exact dates, but those passed long ago.

Anyway, I think the parable of the Good Samaritan warns us not to get too “Holier than thou”.

That is not what I am doing with respect to Mormons or JWs. They themselves declare themselves to not have anything in common with the rest of us who would call ourselves Christian and have for centuries.

Hope you don’t mind, but speaking of throwing around labels loosely, the Church headed by the Pope is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. “Roman” Catholic is a term brought about, oddly enough, by Anglicans who wanted to differentiate themselves from Catholics still loyal to the Pope after the whole Henry VIII thing.

The pope is, however, the bishop of Rome.

Not a biggie though, lots of non-Catholics call us bead mumblers.

Certainly don’t mind. Thank-you for the correction. I’m always glad when I can learn something.

 

[GKC]

Hello,
Could you explain the above, ten commandment style?

Not sure. You mean in the form of “thou shalt nots”?

Or, if you mean to unpack that sentence a little, yes, I think I can. Hank and his problems is a hobby area for me.

Might not be until tomorrow, though. I’m trying to finish something right now.

Thanks for asking.

GKC

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Honestly, I think it’s the American secular society that lumps Christianity into Catholic and Protestant. Pretty much leaving out Orthodoxy.

I am generally in agreement with you in the sense that TIME magazine doesn’t know Greek Orthodox past Zorba The Greek and to say they are like Catholics with married priests…

But on the net, and in these forums, and among a growing number of academics, I am happy to report, the East is becoming a bump on the horizon… We are at least becoming a “known quantity of the unknown”.

Baby steps.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I don’t know the official “labelling system” of of the “Roman” Catholic Church, but I’ve heard Catholic Apologists refer to these groups who don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, theTrinity, etc. as quasi-Christian. It’s not meant as an insult, but as a way of distinguishing these groups from Protestants.
QUOTE]

As far as these gropus go…

If Trinitarian baptism and an acceptance of Christ as truly God is to be a litmsu test for being called “Christian” (and I think that is fair)…

Than NO these folks are not Christians. That they are of a faith that gives credence to the person of Jesus as a historical person and formulate moral and ethical codes around Him, certainly…

To call them “quasi-Christians” that serves a purpose and is fairly accurate. Neither Mormons nor JW’s are Christian in that regard.

 

[jmcrae]

Jayda,

Thanks for continuing the dialog. It seems I still do not understand the definition of apostasy afterall. Would you mind clarifying that some more?

Muslims also profess belief in Christ. I know you know that, but of course Muslims mean something completely different from what either you or I mean by that. But, yet, Muslims are considered non-Christians by the Roman Catholic Church.

The reason is that Muhammed was a pagan at the time that he created the Islamic religion. He based it on a distortion of Jewish and Christian teachings, and retained a great many of his pagan rituals, but the essence of it originated with himself.

This is why I keep saying what I do about Mormons. I believe the canon does condemn them. They claim belief in Christ, but what they mean by it has about as much in common with Christianity as Islam does. In truth, though they use the name of Christ, the do not actually believe in Christ anymore than other non-Christians do.

The reason Mormonism gets lumped in with Christianity is that Joseph Smith was a Christian at the time that he developed the Mormon religion. (The same reason Lutheranism is still considered Christian - because Luther was at least nominally Christian at the time that he developed the religion.)

From the Catholic point of view, heresy is always heresy, even though one heretic may, in fact, be more heretical than another. Luther’s heresies were obviously much less severe, compared to Joseph Smith’s - but both men were Christian heretics, and thus, both religions are considered to be Christian heresies, rather than entirely different religions, as Islam is. (Even though, as you point out, Islam may well be closer to the de fide teachings of the Church than Mormonism is, in actual point of fact.)

 

[GKC]

Hello,
Could you explain the above, ten commandment style?

Thanks for your patience.

I’m going to expand on that sentence a little. To keep it short (the subject is immensely complicated) I’m not to to try to cover the whole annulment/dispenation/impediment system. Or much of Hanks’s history. If you need more, just ask.

But, having said that, a little background. By the 16th century, the Church system for managing the sacrament of marriage was incredibly complex. It was designed to do two things: protect the sacrament, and simultaneously permit the making and unmaking of dynastic marriages, for political reasons. To do this, it had a system of courts, running up to the final court in Rome. And marriages were made and unmade, routinely and constantly, under this system.

Henry sought to do what was commonplace at the time. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, in order to make a marriage that would provide him with a legtimate male heir (a thing that had been worrying him for years) and also permit him to scratch an itch that he had recently acquired, re: Anne Boleyn. Seemed reasonable to him.

And, with respect to the system as it was worked in his day, it was not only reasonable, it was unexceptional. It happened daily. But to make it happen, Henry had to submit his case (causa) to the system, and wait for a decree of nullity, which he was fully justified in expecting to be forthcoming. Henry’s case was based on the concept of an impediment to his marriage to Catherine, arising from the prohibition in Leviticus against a man marrying his brother’s wife. This was what as generally known as an impediment of affinity (of which there were many kinds and degrees. Because of this impediment, Juluis II had issued a dispensation (the other side of a decree of nullity, removing a canonical impediment) permitting Henry to marry Catherine in the first place. Henry now maintained that the prohibition was Scriptural, God’s law, not positive Church law, and thus was beyond a Pope’s power to dispense. There are impediments like that; no one can dispense to permit a son to marry his mother for example (canonically, an impediment of consanquinity in the first degree, direct). This meant that he was saying that Julius had made an error and the diispensation exceeded his authority (*ultra vires). *

While a reasonable case, it was not an exceptionally strong one. And Julius was not an exceptionally strong Pope. And for historical reasons that I pass over, the ruling was against Henry (hint: Charles V). But there was actually a stronger case lurking in Henry’s history (not that either case would have gotten him the decree of nullity; politics and military power trump canonical law). His stronger case, as Cardinal Wolsey saw, lay in a class of impediments called the justice of public honesty. Without getting into technical details, this meant that if a marrige was contracted and consummated between A and B, two actual types of impediments might arise for person C later wishing to marry A or B. That is, there was the potential for an impediment of affinity, which arose from the the consummation of the marriage, or of the justice of public honesty, which arose from the betrothal/marriage contract.

At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for some one who would have an impediment to marrying A or B, the dispensation need only specifically state that the affinity impediment was dispensed, and the impediment of public honesty was thereby dispensed, implicity. But, if the marriage was not consummated, as Catherine maintained all along, and as was likely true, then the justice of public honesty must be explicitly dispensed. Julius didn’t do that. And hence there was a good case for Henry.

He didn’t pursue that, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Catherine, no way was Henry going to get a decree of nullity. An Emperor trumps a King. And an emperor controlling a Pope is stronger still. So Henry didn’t get his decree. He got a Church, instead.

I have cut that severely. You want more details, just ask.

GKC

 

[LapsedAtheist]

I tend to agree with most of your post, one correction however. None of the various Methodist denominations are “Luther-derived”. We trace our roots back to John Wesley who was an Anglican priest.

My mistake. I stand corrected.

 

[mark_a]

Have all of his books from back then. Interesting to see how JW theology has changed. They used to predict exact dates, but those passed long ago.

If these are rare, they’re probably worth more than their weight in gold. I t would be kinda humorous to make some copies and hand them out when JW’s come knocking.

That is not what I am doing with respect to Mormons or JWs. They themselves declare themselves to not have anything in common with the rest of us who would call ourselves Christian and have for centuries.

Gotcha- sorry for the mis-read of your post.

 

[mark_a]

Thanks for your patience.

I’m going to expand on that sentence a little. To keep it short (the subject is immensely complicated) I’m not to to try to cover the whole annulment/dispenation/impediment system. Or much of Hanks’s history. If you need more, just ask.

But, having said that, a little background. By the 16th century, the Church system for managing the sacrament of marriage was incredibly complex. It was designed to do two things: protect the sacrament, and simultaneously permit the making and unmaking of dynastic marriages, for political reasons. To do this, it had a system of courts, running up to the final court in Rome. And marriages were made and unmade, routinely and constantly, under this system.

Henry sought to do what was commonplace at the time. He sought a decree of nullity with respect to his marriage to Catherine, in order to make a marriage that would provide him with a legtimate male heir (a thing that had been worrying him for years) and also permit him to scratch an itch that he had recently acquired, re: Anne Boleyn. Seemed reasonable to him.

And, with respect to the system as it was worked in his day, it was not only reasonable, it was unexceptional. It happened daily. But to make it happen, Henry had to submit his case (causa) to the system, and wait for a decree of nullity, which he was fully justified in expecting to be forthcoming. Henry’s case was based on the concept of an impediment to his marriage to Catherine, arising from the prohibition in Leviticus against a man marrying his brother’s wife. This was what as generally known as an impediment of affinity (of which there were many kinds and degrees. Because of this impediment, Juluis II had issued a dispensation (the other side of a decree of nullity, removing a canonical impediment) permitting Henry to marry Catherine in the first place. Henry now maintained that the prohibition was Scriptural, God’s law, not positive Church law, and thus was beyond a Pope’s power to dispense. There are impediments like that; no one can dispense to permit a son to marry his mother for example (canonically, an impediment of consanquinity in the first degree, direct). This meant that he was saying that Julius had made an error and the diispensation exceeded his authority (*ultra vires). *

While a reasonable case, it was not an exceptionally strong one. And Julius was not an exceptionally strong Pope. And for historical reasons that I pass over, the ruling was against Henry (hint: Charles V). But there was actually a stronger case lurking in Henry’s history (not that either case would have gotten him the decree of nullity; politics and military power trump canonical law). His stronger case, as Cardinal Wolsey saw, lay in a class of impediments called the justice of public honesty. Without getting into technical details, this meant that if a marrige was contracted and consummated between A and B, two actual types of impediments might arise for person C later wishing to marry A or B. That is, there was the potential for an impediment of affinity, which arose from the the consummation of the marriage, or of the justice of public honesty, which arose from the betrothal/marriage contract.

At the time, the rule was that if a valid marriage was contracted, and consummated, and later a dispensation was sought for some one who would have an impediment to marrying A or B, the dispensation need only specifically state that the affinity impediment was dispensed, and the impediment of public honesty was thereby dispensed, implicity. But, if the marriage was not consummated, as Catherine maintained all along, and as was likely true, then the justice of public honesty must be explicitly dispensed. Julius didn’t do that. And hence there was a good case for Henry.

He didn’t pursue that, and it didn’t really matter. Given the relationship between Clement and Charles, and Charles and Catherine, no way was Henry going to get a decree of nullity. An Emperor trumps a King. And an emperor controlling a Pope is stronger still. So Henry didn’t get his decree. He got a Church, instead.

I have cut that severely. You want more details, just ask.

GKC

Great info!!

I’d like more details, but don’t know what to ask for. I haven’t seen a good Henry VIII thread in a while. After I digest your info, I’ll start another thread.

Thanks.