Ecumenical flattery?

[Peter_J]

I just checked two style guides (AP and Chicago). Both say it is spelt with a capital P. I’m not saying you don’t have a point (style guides aren’t an argument about how things should be done, they are a guide to how things may be done), but for those of us who have to follow these things religiously, it carries over into forum posting.

Well, I guess you could call that “an argument [of sorts] about how things should be done”. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I guess I can go along with it – at least in situations where the important thing is following convention. (In the same way that I might check “Roman Catholic” on a survey form, if there was a better option like “Melkite Catholic”, “Greek Catholic” or “Eastern Catholic”.)

So I guess ultimately what I’m here saying is that writing “protestant” makes more sense than “Protestant” in principle.

 

[Peter_J]

Do you think there is such a thing as ecumenical flattery, and if so what example(s) come most to your mind?

Yes. The greatest act of flattery is always when a non RC refers to the RCC as the “Catholic Church”, not knowing that this is clearly a claim to that church’s universality.

That’s a good example … although, oddly enough, I tend to think of it in reverse. Namely, that we Catholics are happy when non-Catholics call us “the Catholic Church” (or unhappy when they refuse to call us that), when in fact they don’t really mean anything by it.

 

[nhylan]

That’s a good example … although, oddly enough, I tend to think of it in reverse. Namely, that we Catholics are happy when non-Catholics call us “the Catholic Church” (or unhappy when they refuse to call us that), when in fact they don’t really mean anything by it.

That’s a tricky one. I typically refer to the Catholic Church in direct communion with the Pope as Roman Catholic. I do this not as a pejorative or anything but because firstly it reflects the Geo-political center of that church, where the See is located, and that members of that church are members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Now you could read into that and say that I’m saying that they aren’t the only members of the church and that that is a tacit denial of Roman Catholic (Catholic) doctrine but I’m not really looking at it from that point of view.

Do you find that insulting?

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I prefer if people say “the Roman Communion” rather than “the Roman Catholic Church”, since it’s actually made up of 23 different churches (although the largest of those, the Latin Church, contains about 98% of Catholics).

As far as terms like “the Catholic Church”, “the one true church”, “the original church”, and “the church of Christ” … well I guess I don’t mind at all if you want to call us those.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, I guess you could call that “an argument [of sorts] about how things should be done”. It doesn’t really make sense to me, but I guess I can go along with it – at least in situations where the important thing is following convention. (In the same way that I might check “Roman Catholic” on a survey form, if there was a better option like “Melkite Catholic”, “Greek Catholic” or “Eastern Catholic”.)

So I guess ultimately what I’m here saying is that writing “protestant” makes more sense than “Protestant” in principle.

Style guides seldom make sense.

 

[Peter_J]

Tonight I was reading Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic? for unrelated reasons (I’ve long been interested in whether people think of Anglicanism as “Protestant”, and also in whether they think of it as “Catholic”), but I decided I should give it a quick mention here when I noticed it indirectly touches on question of capitalizing those terms.

 

[hn160]

It was used by the Catholics at the Diet of Speyer, 1529 to describe the German Lutheran princes. They issued a letter of protestation. I would prefer to describe Lutherans as Evangelical Catholics because protestant includes Calvinist, Pentecostals, Baptist and others that do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine of Holy Communion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Peter J;10737571]I don’t know if this topic will spark much conversation, but I thought I would give it a try…

Do you think there is such a thing as ecumenical flattery, and if so what example(s) come most to your mind?

The one example that comes to mind when a past poster posted a video of Orthodox Church members visiting Rome and presented their gift to Pope Benedict XVI. It was a buss image of the Pope’s head. The video showed the Popes surprised look when the Orthodox presented such a gift to him. The viewer is left to decide whether the gift from the Orthodox was flattery or insulting?

Peace be with you

 

[MaryT777]

The one example that comes to mind when a past poster posted a video of Orthodox Church members visiting Rome and presented their gift to Pope Benedict XVI. It was a buss image of the Pope’s head. The video showed the Popes surprised look when the Orthodox presented such a gift to him. The viewer is left to decide whether the gift from the Orthodox was flattery or insulting?

Peace be with you

Excellent point.

 

[steido01]

Protestant applies to a few different branches of Christianity – Pentecostals, Baptists, Calvinists, and Methodists. Lutherans and Anglicans too, according to the thinking of most.

Similarly, the adjective catholic can be applied to a few branches of Christianity – Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans.

This is why I avoid using the word “Protestant” as much as possible; it’s just not an accurate description. Simply dismissing anything that isn’t Roman or Orthodox as “Protestant” grossly oversimplifies the many -and very different- expressions within Christendom. I’d rather swim the Tiber than be lumped in the same category as a double-predestination Calvinist!

 

[benjohnson]

I’d rather swim the Tiber than be lumped in the same category as a double-predestination Calvinist!

Reminds me of Luther’s quote about the Eucharist:

*I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts. *(Luther’s Works, 37, 317)

 

[MaryT777]

Reminds me of Luther’s quote about the Eucharist:

*I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts. *(Luther’s Works, 37, 317)

Nice quote; I’ve never heard of that one.
Mary.

 

[ffg]

I’m not sure how properly spelling a proper name turns into flattery.

I would think most non-Catholics on this site would come in with a bit of an understanding that they will run into people looking to drive a point home vs worrying about proper english. I would hope that’s desired, I know I like straight answers.

In this time with twitter, facebook and letter abreviations for full (and fragmented) terms, it is very important for us to understand the point and intention of one’s word for a fruitful discussion.

Most recently this has been a concern as I’ve seen some people ask questions and get answers very much in line with the Church.

Instead of trying to understand the answer, they blurt quickly back with a response. Then claim the question was never answered.

It’s understandable the information doesn’t compute well right away, it’s crazy stuff, humanly speaking. But that’s why if you want to understand it, you have to be open to the answers being provided and study them.

 

[Peter_J]

This is why I avoid using the word “Protestant” as much as possible; it’s just not an accurate description.

Myself, I guess I’ve gone back and forth … at some periods of my life I’ve avoided applying the term “protestant” to Lutherans and Anglicans, but not at others. (The Anglican blogger Fr. Robert Hart makes a good case for calling himself protestant, for example in Pro and Con testantism )

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks for that example, Gabriel.

 

[Peter_J]

A further question for you, steido01: do you call yourself (and fellow Lutherans) “catholic”?

 

[steido01]

A further question for you, steido01: do you call yourself (and fellow Lutherans) “catholic”?

In a word: ABSOLUTELY!

Any church body or individual who professes the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the other works in the Book of Concord (and does not “modernize” it to suit their personal fancies) is, indeed, expressing a legitimate continuation of the catholic faith. There are some in Rome who agree - a younger Cardinal Ratzinger was a particularly vocal supporter of acknowledging the AC as a legitimate catholic (and thereby Catholic) confession. I continue to pray that Pope Francis will continue the marvelous work of his predecessor toward reunion. Holy Spirit willing, I may even live to see it.

Of course, I cannot pretend that error has not infiltrated some “Lutheran” church bodies. Sadly, secular and Reformed undercurrents in America have led some of the larger [formerly] Lutheran church bodies to stray from their catholic roots. In honesty to the world and their own laity, I sincerely wish they would remove the “Lutheran” from their name.

 

[Peter_J]

In a word: ABSOLUTELY!

Any church body or individual who professes the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and the other works in the Book of Concord (and does not “modernize” it to suit their personal fancies) is, indeed, expressing a legitimate continuation of the catholic faith. There are some in Rome who agree - a younger Cardinal Ratzinger was a particularly vocal supporter of acknowledging the AC as a legitimate catholic (and thereby Catholic) confession. I continue to pray that Pope Francis will continue the marvelous work of his predecessor toward reunion. Holy Spirit willing, I may even live to see it.

Interesting, interesting.

I’ve noticed that Fr. Hart calls himself “Protestant” and “Catholic” (both with capitals). That’s partly why I asked.

 

[steido01]

I’ve noticed that Fr. Hart calls himself “Protestant” and “Catholic” (both with capitals). That’s partly why I asked.

You know, I like much of what Fr. Hart has to say. If his definition were promulgated, I think we’d all be happy to call ourselves “Protestant.”

All kidding aside, I am intrigued by the Rev. Dr. Hassert’s blog that you posted. In fact, replace “Anglican” with “Lutheran,” and much (if not most) of that blog would still fit. But I think Hassert’s most important point is that neither “Protestant” nor “Catholic” carries the same meaning today as it did in the 1500’s. For the sake of a proper understanding and education among my fellow laymen, I’ve made it a point to call myself catholic, while disengaging from the Protestant label. Perhaps I ought to be more forward with it… Thanks for the food for thought.

His peace be with you,

 

[Peter_J]

But I think Hassert’s most important point is that neither “Protestant” nor “Catholic” carries the same meaning today as it did in the 1500’s.

Very true. In particular, except when I talking with my friends in the PNCC, “Catholic” almost always means “in communion with Rome”.