Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[cmodrmac]

we of course are not protesting anything regarding dogma or authority-we are not in anyway attempting to influence Roman Catholic teaching-we just disagree

the term Protestant I believe is really outdated -my denomiation’s differences with the RC Church are relatively few but very important-enough that I believe there will NEVER be unity betweed the RC and the Anglican communion-few in my Parish want unity and I suspect few RC want unity

I believe that the differences below are enough to guarantee no Unity = ever

we allow female Priests
some of our Parishes are fine with Gay marriage -then again some are not
birth control is a matter of an individual’s choice
we hire our Priests not get them assigned
we have open Eucharist for all baptized Christians

 

[SteveVH]

we of course are not protesting anything regarding dogma or authority-we are not in anyway attempting to influence Roman Catholic teaching-we just disagree

the term Protestant I believe is really outdated -my denomiation’s differences with the RC Church are relatively few but very important-enough that I believe there will NEVER be unity betweed the RC and the Anglican communion-few in my Parish want unity and I suspect few RC want unity

I believe that the differences below are enough to guarantee no Unity = ever

we allow female Priests
some of our Parishes are fine with Gay marriage -then again some are not
birth control is a matter of an individual’s choice
we hire our Priests not get them assigned
we have open Eucharist for all baptized Christians

Realistic assessment, IMHO.

 

[PaulDupre1]

Lutherans are uncomfortable with the practice of donating money to have a Mass

I’ve never heard of having to pay to go to mass or to have a special mass said.

It is customary, however, to reimburse the parish for the costs of a special mass. The wine, the candles, the incense etc. all cost money. When we had a special mass for my father after he died, we voluntarily reimbursed the parish $50. The pastor never asked us for it; we just knew the custom and the reasons behind it. We considered it an offering in memory of my father.

Paul

 

[wmscott]

With regards to unity, did I hear correctly that the Anglican Church in England, not the American Episcopal Church, was discussing coming into communion with Rome? And that the Anglican Church does not allow women priests, gay marriage and the like that the Episcopal Church does in America? Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[wmscott]

Also is there discussions with the Lutheran Church and Rome about coming into communion with Rome? I bet JonS can tell me

 

[SyroMalankara]

With regards to unity, did I hear correctly that the Anglican Church in England, not the American Episcopal Church, was discussing coming into communion with Rome? And that the Anglican Church does not allow women priests, gay marriage and the like that the Episcopal Church does in America? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You must have misheard. There are a few Anglican sects not in the mainstream Communion of Anglicans/Episcopalians that are coming into and have come into Union with Rome. The ones that did do not have women clergy, gay marriage etc.
The Church of England, as well as the mainstream Anglican Communion accepts all those things.

There was a very small Lutheran sect saying it was coming into Communion with Rome, but there is no basis for this claim nor any evidence. This sect’s retired leader joined the Roman Catholic Church as a layman after resigning his ministry.

 

[wmscott]

You must have misheard. There are a few Anglican sects not in the mainstream Communion of Anglicans/Episcopalians that are coming into and have come into Union with Rome. The ones that did do not have women clergy, gay marriage etc.
The Church of England, as well as the mainstream Anglican Communion accepts all those things.

There was a very small Lutheran sect saying it was coming into Communion with Rome, but there is no basis for this claim nor any evidence. This sect’s retired leader joined the Roman Catholic Church as a layman after resigning his ministry.

thanks for the clarification

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I’ve never heard of having to pay to go to mass or to have a special mass said.

It is customary, however, to reimburse the parish for the costs of a special mass. The wine, the candles, the incense etc. all cost money. When we had a special mass for my father after he died, we voluntarily reimbursed the parish $50. The pastor never asked us for it; we just knew the custom and the reasons behind it. We considered it an offering in memory of my father.

Paul

After my dad’s funeral Mass, the family offered an icon to the pastor and helped pay the expenses for the dinner in the parish hall. That is customary for Lutherans. We do not ever offer money for a Mass as a means to pay that eternal light shine upon the dead but rather pray for the faithful departed.

 

[South_Bound]

we of course are not protesting anything regarding dogma or authority-we are not in anyway attempting to influence Roman Catholic teaching-we just disagree

I agree. Like I said, I don’t think of it as “protesting” anything, as much as I see it as a defense of and call for return to the doctrines of grace.

the term Protestant I believe is really outdated

There are so many misconceptions about it, such as in the OP, that I tend not to even use it. But it’s hard to change a word that’s been used for so long.

 

[Richard_Feynman]

Protest (verb) - to give manifest expression to objection or disapproval

I would like terms to be defined (I think it would make things easier.) What do you think the doctrines of grace are? And when did we (as the Catholic Church) leave them?

 

[SteveVH]

Protest (verb) - to give manifest expression to objection or disapproval

I would like terms to be defined (I think it would make things easier.) What do you think the doctrines of grace are? And when did we (as the Catholic Church) leave them?

I would like an answer to this as well. The doctrines of grace can be found in their fullness in the seven sacraments, the very channels of grace established by Christ himself.

 

[Publisher]

But you would agree that there’s authority in your house/family. Your father maybe the one hold authority, and then your mother, and then your eldest sibling. Perhaps.

As for Roman Catholic church, since he’s probably the eldest church around, we can’t just ignore it. Maybe your older brother did wrong in the past, or maybe he’s still doing wrong here and there, but like it or not, he’s still your brother. The same with Roman Catholic church I think. Unless you grew really dislike him & decided to disown him. But he’s still someone in your life.

Just my 2 cents, if I make any sense.

While I may agree conceding family life and it’s inner working of immediate family…when it come to religious organizations you may have a point IF I actually believed I’m the claims of the catholic church concerning its authority. It is just one of several that claim to be “the first”. It definitely gained prominance when it aligned itself with the Roman government…but the Othodox make the same claims…as do other “apostolic” groups that claim to be “the church started by Jesus”. One can have age on one’s side,but one can be old and wrong at the same time.

 

[JonNC]

=LDemontfort;12081108]As a Catholic in an area with many non-Catholic’s I often hear that Martin Luther was a great man that saved the church through reformation.

That’s nice. Are they Lutheran?

However, when the question is posed about the “need” for Martin Luther’s protest I hear explanations like… “Because the Catholic Church was corrupt” or “the church lost its authority”, et. Al. What I don’t understand, and my question is if the issue was corruption why change the dogma? ** If the issue was loss of authority, whether through corruption or some other reason, how do they explain Matthew 16:18. Would that not mean the church fell due to evil (“the gates of hell”)? If it did not fall then the teachings of the church were still sound, so why did Martin Luther (with no authority if his own) decide it truthful and appropriate to change teaching? If it did fall, how could that be, as it runs contrary to Jesus’s own words, which is “truth”**?

Frankly, no. Matthew 16:18 is not talking about currently, or only the Church Militant, or only and exclusive that portion of the Church Militant that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. From the DRB:
*And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell *shall not prevail against it. *
The language is ongoing, not static, future tense, not past tense. simply because there are divisions within the Church Militant does not mean that the Gates of Hell will *** prevail. For that to happen, the gates of Hell would indeed have to overrun the Church Triumphant, as well. That clearly hasn’t happened, nor will it.

But to answer the title, my guess is that most protestants do not know that the origin of the term protestant has to do with a protest against civil authorities at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529, not directly against the CC. Further, most protestants in the pew view the CC as another church down the street that a friend happens to attend. So, I imagine they do not consider in any way that their faith is any sort of protest against anything, and essentially, they are correct, in my view.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

we of course are not protesting anything regarding dogma or authority-we are not in anyway attempting to influence Roman Catholic teaching-we just disagree

the term Protestant I believe is really outdated -my denomiation’s differences with the RC Church are relatively few but very important-enough that I believe there will NEVER be unity betweed the RC and the Anglican communion-few in my Parish want unity and I suspect few RC want unity

I believe that the differences below are enough to guarantee no Unity = ever

we allow female Priests
some of our Parishes are fine with Gay marriage -then again some are not
birth control is a matter of an individual’s choice
we hire our Priests not get them assigned
we have open Eucharist for all baptized Christians

Kind of a deal breaker for Missouri Synod Lutherans, as well.
But, I don’t see it as our communions protesting against each other. In fact, when it comes to the HHS Mandate, the changing of the definition of marriage, and some other social issues, the Catholic Church has become the biggest “protestant” communion, when historically understood what the term means, and LCMS Lutherans are happy to stand beside them.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12082542]

It is a barrier if only you make it a barrier, isn’t it?

It was a barrier to unity long before the various reformation movements came along.
It is a barrier if only we (both sides) make it a barrier.

And can you suggest an alternative to papal authority? If not the pope, who is the alternative?

Councils, where the bishops are all equal, an where the bishop of Rome is recognized as having a primacy of honor, as was the practice in the early Church.

The reformers splintered among themselves already. Can you say the Reformation will succeed just by itself?

No. We need the Church Catholic. Reformation is not an independent movement, and cannot succeed without reconciliation.

Jon

 

[in_servitude]

Councils, where the bishops are all equal, an where the bishop of Rome is recognized as having a primacy of honor, as was the practice in the early Church.

I’d like to hear your explanation for Clement’s letter to the church in Corinth. As I understand it, the deference toward the pope that brought about the letter in the first place does not align with your description. People appealed to the pope for answers. (Yeah, and the Apostle John(!) was still alive at the time).

 

[JonNC]

I’d like to hear your explanation for Clement’s letter to the church in Corinth. As I understand it, the deference toward the pope that brought about the letter in the first place does not align with your description. People appealed to the pope for answers. (Yeah, and the Apostle John(!) was still alive at the time).

But it doesn’t align with papal supremacy, either. Neither does Nicea canon 6. Appealing to the pope is not the same as universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[in_servitude]

But it doesn’t align with papal supremacy, either. Neither does Nicea canon 6. Appealing to the pope is not the same as universal jurisdiction.

Jon

I’m confused by your answer. Is there any reason why the church in Corinth would write to Clement? Is there any reason why Clement would think that he has any business writing back with answers? Is there any reason why people would care to transmit that letter through time? If Clement is just bishop of some other location, it doesn’t make sense.

 

[pablope]

[SIGN]Quote:
=pablope;12082542]

It is a barrier if only you make it a barrier, isn’t it?[/SIGN]

It was a barrier to unity long before the various reformation movements came along.
It is a barrier if only we

(both sides) make it a barrier.

Hey, Jon…are you still able to walk around much? Do you still teach?

Anyway…it was not a barrier in prior to 1054, it only became a barrier after, and it seems, further after the Reformation.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

On the other hand, Pope Leo, in his anxiety to preserve the privileges of his See, seems to have overlooked the fact that the Easterners still looked upon Rome as the Imperial city, as is evident from declarations made by some of the Bishops at Chalcedon. To them, the fact that Rome was the first capital and the foundation of the Empire was sufficient proof that the primacy in the Church belonged to her Bishops, and it would so remain as long as the Roman Empire, of which Constantinople was now the Imperial residence, endured…One thing is securely established, namely, that the Byzantine Church did not intend to question the primacy of Rome in the Church. In spite of what happened, Rome continued to be regarded as the superior of Constantinople and as the first See in the Church.

I just recalled the story of Israel during the prophet Jeremiah, over and over, he told the king of Israel to accept authority of their conqueror, I think it was Nebuchadnezzar, to be spared. The king would not.

So may I ask…why did God require this acceptance of authority, for what purpose?

Do you think the disunity will be solved without some sort of acceptance of an authority here?

Quote:
And can you suggest an alternative to papal authority? If not the pope, who is the alternative?

Councils, where the bishops are all equal, an where the bishop of Rome is recognized as having a primacy of honor, as was the practice in the early Church.

And who will be the mouth of the council? Who will confirm the findings or decision of the council, following the practice of the early church?

As I recall, it was Peter who made doctrinal statements in the Bible, not any other Apostle, that I can think of. And it was revealed to Peter who Christ is, and as to the issue of accepting Gentiles in the Church in Acts 10/11.

No. We need the Church Catholic. Reformation is not an independent movement, and cannot succeed without reconciliation.

Jon

But Jon, the Reformation is already splintered, how can it ever hope to succeed?

And do you mean to say that the Church has not reformed itself starting at Trent? That its reform has not been guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[pablope]

But it doesn’t align with papal supremacy, either. Neither does Nicea canon 6. Appealing to the pope is not the same as universal jurisdiction.

Jon

Well, Jon, I dunno. This canon 6, as I recall, has been explained countless of times.

Here is a historical background (if you have not read it yet):

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Also, the supra-metropolitan organization which resulted in the formation of the first Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, owes its origin, not to the apostolic foundation of these cities, but to the fact that they were the most important cities of the Empire, the capitals of groups of provinces. Rome was more privileged in this way, because it was the capital of the Empire and the residence of the Emperors. Owing to the intimate connection of all Italian cities with the city of Rome by which they were regarded only as municipia, the Bishops of the capital of Italy and of the Empire were able to preserve direct jurisdiction over the whole of Italy, without the intermediary of the Metropolitans of the provinces, into which Italy was subdivided.

This development in the organization of the Church was sanctioned by the First Oecumenical Council of Nicea in 325. Canon Six of the Council also acknowledged the rights of the Roman See over the whole of Italy, and the Fathers suggested that the exercise of these rights by the Bishop of Rome over Italy was a precedent that should serve as a good example to the Bishop of Alexandria and, partially, also to the Bishop of Antioch. Thus even the supra-metropolitan organization found its basic sanction in the Council of Nicaea. Even Rome adapted itself to the principle that the ecclesiastical organization should follow the political division of the Empire. When Italy was divided into two political dioceses with the capitals of Rome and Milan, Milan became automatically a metropolis with jurisdiction over the North of Italy, and the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome was limited to the provinces of central and southern Italy, called suburbicariae.3