First priest in gay marriage, Jeremy Pemberton, loses employment tribunal

[sps49]

Then an invalid observation. For someone to say a protestant being protestant assumes that there is some particular way that protestants are. One could say that they are not Catholic, and that they are Christian. There are some things western non-Catholic Christians agree on. So, one might assume the poster must mean one of these two, though the context doesn’t lend itself to that.
It isn’t a matter of being offended in any way. It is a matter of accuracy. By any context, to say that the actions of this Anglican priest is typical of protestants can be described only as ad hominem.

Perhaps you should submit a specification that accurately describes the precision by which an observation may be deemed “valid.” I suspect you will not get much traction with that, since there are many different perspectives and perceptions on this.

But that isn’t for you, or me, to decide. Anglicans get to choose that designation. They get to say what the influence of the various central European reformation era groups was.
There is no doubt that there was influence, but if Anglicans choose not to be identified as protestant, it becomes polemical to argue with them otherwise.
You are right, however, that naming rights are not exclusive. I self-identify as Evangelical Catholic, as that is the historical identity of the Lutheran reformers and reformation churches, as noted by Lutheran scholars from John Gerhard to Arthur Carl Piepkorn. Those in communion with the Bishop of Rome do not hold exclusive control over the name Catholic.
Perhaps the poster who made the “protestants being protestants” observation could explain it. Otherwise, its clearly ad hominem.
Jon
The term protestant can be used with integrity, if used in its proper sense. Historically, it refers to those who participated in the protest of the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529, which was a protest of government action to limit religious free exercise. The second, being a loose, general category of western non-Catholic Christian communions, traditions, and denominations.

Anglicans have self identified with that designation over the years, so they did choose, and continue to choose from what I can see. I could see how that would be annoying to a scholar, with messy classifications and nomenclatures popping up and dying. Since I noticed that you have indeed provided a proposed specification for the term “Protestant,” all you need to do now is to get a consensus that this is the approved name that possesses the proper integrity and validity. Good luck with that. Since I did not bring up the “usage” of the word “Catholic,” and since you cleverly pointed out that one need not trouble the Bishop of Rome about it, I can see no reason why you would mind anyone not properly “Lutheran” from using “Protestant.” Still not seeing the whole ad hominem problem. Perhaps it looks different from 30,00 feet, or 400 miles. No, not really…

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps you should submit a specification that accurately describes the precision by which an observation may be deemed “valid.” I suspect you will not get much traction with that, since there are many different perspectives and perceptions on this.

Anglicans have self identified with that designation over the years, so they did choose, and continue to choose from what I can see. I could see how that would be annoying to a scholar, with messy classifications and nomenclatures popping up and dying. Since I noticed that you have indeed provided a proposed specification for the term “Protestant,” all you need to do now is to get a consensus that this is the approved name that possesses the proper integrity and validity. Good luck with that. Since I did not bring up the “usage” of the word “Catholic,” and since you cleverly pointed out that one need not trouble the Bishop of Rome about it, I can see no reason why you would mind anyone not properly “Lutheran” from using “Protestant.” Still not seeing the whole ad hominem problem. Perhaps it looks different from 30,00 feet, or 400 miles. No, not really…

Perhaps an analogy:
One disagrees with something Angela Merkel does as chancellor of Germany, and in response say, it’s just Europeans being Europeans.
This is ad hominem because it does not speak to the event or action itself, but instead attacks the person, character, or motives of the Chancellor.
Further, it lays a claim that Merkel’s actions represent the way all Europeans act. Again, ad hominem. It is also absurd to claim that all Europeans, regardless of culture, nationality, etc. act the same. They may all be European, but they are not the same.
It is precisely this faulty reasoning that leads someone to say that the actions of this Anglican priest are representative of how all protestants act - “protestants being protestants”. Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Reformed, and others may be categorized as “protestant”, but the are not the same, do not act the same, do not share the same theology.
Germans are Europeans, but not all Europeans act like Germans.
Even if you categorize Anglicans as protestant, not all protestants act like Anglicans.

As for the priest involved, apparently Anglicans don’t even approve of his actions, since he lost his PTO.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Agreed. Anglicans are indeed not the place to find a definition of what a Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome is. But as I said, the those in communion with the Bishop of Rome do not have exclusive claim to the title Catholic.

Jon

That argument was waged and answered early on in Church history by Bp Irenaeus, who was one man away from the apostle John.

Irenaeus identifies himself as Catholic in the Catholic Church [Bk 1** Chapter 10 ]

• in paragraph 1 he practically pens what we know as the Nicene creed.
• in paragraph 2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this Faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.
• paragraph 3, … a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Æons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said

The “Church” Irenaeus speaks of is the Catholic Church. To put to an end any confusion and argument on this, he identifies the authority of the leadership of the “Catholic Church” in Rome and where this authority came from. All must agree with THIS Church on account of it’s pre-eminent authjority and THAT comes down to his (Irenaeus) day by the 2 Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome, and (12 bishops of Rome he names) as successors to Peter down to his day and faithful men everywhere who keep this faith faithfully [Bk 3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3 v 1-3 ]

It’s as I said. The Catholic Church identifies who is Catholic. It has that authority.

 

[johnnyc176]

Thank you, Jon. I think sometimes Roman Catholics think that anyone not Catholic is a Protestant.

And on the action of this one priest, didn’t we just read about a priest who worked in the Vatican who lost his job after coming out as a partnered gay man? Not exactly the same circumstances, but close enough to make your point.

And he is a protestant also.

 

[johnnyc176]

I would respectfully disagree and suggest, Anglicans aren’t the place to find the definition of what is Catholic.

No one can define themselves as Catholic who aren’t Catholic. The Catholic Church has been here from Pentecost. The Catholic Church defines who her members are.

 

[JonNC]

And he is a protestant also.

In the historic sense, I am. It was evangelical Catholics who staged the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529. Anglicans, on the other hand, did not.

In a contemporary sense, I still am, considered one, protesting government attempts to limit religious free exercise.

stlouisreview.com/article/2015-10-07/statement-catholic

Jon

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Yes, I believe many DO want to change the organization from the inside. I’m thinking specifically of women in my church community who were the forerunners of today’s priests. I’m also thinking of many of my gay clergy friends who are out within the Catholic church, hoping to be witness to so many others still in the closet and wanting change to happen from within.

It’s more like Aldrich Ames or Robert Hansen, but yeah…

 

[steve_b]

In the historic sense, I am. It was evangelical Catholics who staged the protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer in 1529. Anglicans, on the other hand, did not.

historically the diets @ Speyer 1526 and 1529 were not about evangelical Catholics staging protests, but followers of Luther protesting the Catholic Church.

Reformation, The
Lutheranism

 

[JonNC]

historically the diets @ Speyer 1526 and 1529 were not about evangelical Catholics staging protests, but followers of Luther protesting the Catholic Church.

Reformation, The
Lutheranism

Not true, unless you are saying that it was the Catholic church that tried to limit the religious expression of the Evangelical Catholics.
Was it the Church, or the king, who tried to limit the Evangelical Catholics’ religious expression?

Jon

 

[liturgyluver]

Not sure why this has been moved from world news to catholic news, when the priest who has been dismissed is in the Church of England

 

[steve_b]

Not true, unless you are saying that it was the Catholic church that tried to limit the religious expression of the Evangelical Catholics.

Still trying to call Lutherans evangelical Catholics?
J:

Was it the Church, or the king, who tried to limit the Evangelical Catholics’ religious expression?

Jon

Stop with the “evangelical Catholics”. These people are Protestants. Protestantism got its name from suppressing Catholicism

“I. ORIGIN OF THE NAME.—The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1524), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council *they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat. Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel, the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities, **entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders.*On that account they were called Protestants. In course of time the original connotation of “no toleration for Catholics” was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church…”

Protestantism

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13433262]Still trying to call Lutherans evangelical Catholics?

Not trying to. It’s what we are.

Stop with the “evangelical Catholics”. These people are Protestants. Protestantism got its name from suppressing Catholicism

It is what they were, and what we are.

On 25 April 1529, Lutheran representatives at the Second Diet of Speyer issued a letter of protest against the decisions of the Diet’s Roman Catholic majority to enforce the Edict of Worms and prohibit further reformation in the Holy Roman Empire.

The purpose of the Second Diet of Speyer, which began on 15 March 1529, was to coordinate the response of the German princes and other leaders of the Holy Roman Empire against the threat of the Turks and address the issue of division in the Empire brought about by the ideas of Martin Luther and Heinrich Zwingli.

Attendees of the Diet who supported the Catholic Church wanted to reverse the earlier policy of religious tolerance adopted in 1526 at the First Diet of Speyer. This Diet had permitted “each one to live, govern and carry himself as he hopes to answer it to God and His Imperial Majesty.” Reversing the decisions of the First Diet was also the desire of Archduke Ferdinand, who led the Diet in the name of his brother the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Ferdinand ordered that all of the states of the Holy Roman Empire were to tolerate the practice of Catholicism, but Lutheranism would only be tolerated in those German states which had already done so – not in any additional states.** Any further attempt to institute Lutheranism would be prohibited. **Followers of Zwingli and the Anabaptists would not be tolerated at all. Indeed Anabaptists were to be put to death.

In response, the Lutheran attendees of the Diet issued a legal appeal on behalf of themselves, their subjects and all Christians. This appeal was a protest against those decisions of the Second Diet which they deemed contrary to the Word of God, their consciences and the earlier decisions of the First Diet of Speyer. It was signed by six German princes and representatives of fourteen Imperial Free Cities.

This protest would result in the term “Protestant” to be applied first of all to Lutherans and then to all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians.

This, from a Catholic site. The protest was about the limiting of religious free exercise of the Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans), and the Zwinglians. The term protestant comes from that issued protest. It was issued against a political decision, and has nothing to do with doctrine.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Not trying to. It’s what we are.

The Catholic Church doesn’t think so.
J:

It is what they were, and what we are.

Yes, Protestant
J:

This, from a Catholic site. The protest was about the limiting of religious free exercise of the Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans),

nothing is said about Evangelical Catholics being Lutheran. Lutherans are Protestants

even when Wiki is mentioned as a source to go to I personally have a problem with wiki for the following reasons, particularly read the disclaimers

• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

Also, I have a problem with “edit” in front to each article entry. Anybody can edit and who checks for accuracy when considering their own disclaimers.

That’s why I personally don’t use wiki for ANYTHING.
J:

and the Zwinglians. The term protestant comes from that issued protest. It was issued against a political decision, and has nothing to do with doctrine.

Jon

When the protest is against the Catholic Church then it is a religious protest.

 

[Micosil]

Thank you, Jon. I think sometimes Roman Catholics think that anyone not Catholic is a Protestant.

And on the action of this one priest, didn’t we just read about a priest who worked in the Vatican who lost his job after coming out as a partnered gay man? Not exactly the same circumstances, but close enough to make your point.

While the separation of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church may not have been part of the Protestant Reformation per se, there were similar enough circumstances that lead to the separation that it makes sense, in a limited way, to group it in with the Protestant Reformation.

As far as sometimes Catholics thinking that anyone who isn’t Catholic is Protestant – that would leave out the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East. And I do think most Catholics have atleast perhaps heard of these Churches, even in passing. Not to mention, many Christians I’ve spoken to identify with neither the Catholic Church, nor Orthodoxy, nor Protestantism, they claim they are simply “Christian”, while forgetting that they hold to some of the same doctrines and teachings taught by the Reformers (sola fide, sola scriptura, perseverance of the saints, etc.)

That being said, I don’t know what that Anglican priest was thinking. Reminds me of people in the Catholic Church who try to be a child’s godparent but are then shocked when their overtly sinful lifestyle is mentioned and they are denied this status, and they get all flustered.