Generalizations of Protestants

[Peter_J]

Mary, “Protestant” is a created word whose objective meaning has been misapplied to other groups. Some non-Roman Catholics are Protestant, some not. Calling all of them Protestant is inaccurate. It’s like calling all the world’s governments “dictatorships” because they don’t use the same form of democracy found in the United States. Some non-United States counties are dictatorships, but not all.

The ‘only’ common denominator isn’t “rejection” of the Roman Church (after all, Lutherans and Anglicans and others consider y’all to be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church), but Christ- even if their understanding of Him might be obscured by false or mistaken doctrine.

Wanna know what to call us? What we are: Christians. If you must be specific, Lutheran. Or Methodist. Or Anglican. Or whatever specific denomination they belong to. Or Non-Roman Catholic, if you insist on defining the world in relation to yourself.

Isn’t it unrealistic to expect to always avoid umbrella terms? To always say "Lutherans, Methodists, … " and never use the convenient term “protestant” is comparable to always calling me “Melkite”.

 

[steido01]

Isn’t it unrealistic to expect to always avoid umbrella terms? To always say "Lutherans, Methodists, … " and never use the convenient term “protestant” is comparable to always calling me “Melkite”.

It’s always unrealistic to expect understanding over umbrella statements. I don’t think that’s reason enough to avoid educating the rude masses. This is particularly true in relation to the OP, which considered whether Catholic apologists too often attack “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” beliefs as if they represented all non-Roman Catholic Christians, in general.

I guess I object to the term when it’s misapplied as a catch-all for any Western communion not in communion in Rome. Typically, I’m not a fan of social engineering or “reclaiming” words, but in this case, I’d happily embrace a popular realignment and corrected application of terms. After all, we Lutherans have more in common with Rome than with the Calvinist Presbyterian church down the street.

 

[marywarfield]

Mary, “Protestant” is a created word whose objective meaning has been misapplied to other groups. Some non-Roman Catholics are Protestant, some not. Calling all of them Protestant is inaccurate. It’s like calling all the world’s governments “dictatorships” because they don’t use the same form of democracy found in the United States. Some non-United States counties are dictatorships, but not all.

The ‘only’ common denominator isn’t “rejection” of the Roman Church (after all, Lutherans and Anglicans and others consider y’all to be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church), but Christ- even if their understanding of Him might be obscured by false or mistaken doctrine.

Wanna know what to call us? What we are: Christians. If you must be specific, Lutheran. Or Methodist. Or Anglican. Or whatever specific denomination they belong to. Or Non-Roman Catholic, if you insist on defining the world in relation to yourself.

Aw come on. Protestants run the gamut of being so
“benevolent” as to include us as a holy and apostolic church
as you pointed out to our being the Whore of Babylon.
Like it or not, there is no way anyone on this board would
be able to avoid generalizing when you are talking about
such a huge group of diverse faiths. And no, not all
Churches claiming Christian ARE Christian so that
doesn’t fly either.

It’s sort of like some of you are saying hey stop thinking
of us as Protestants cause we really are more like you than
those Baptists and Evangelicals over there we will
throw under the bus. They are the Protestants not us.

 

[steido01]

Aw come on. Protestants run the gamut of being so
“benevolent” as to include us as a holy and apostolic church
as you pointed out to our being the Whore of Babylon.

Just as all non-United States countries “run the gamut” from fascist dictatorship to laissez faire liberalism. You’ve taken a word intended for a small group of Lutherans at the Diet of Speyer and misapplied it to a broad swath of diverse beliefs. What would you expect?

Like it or not, there is no way anyone on this board would
be able to avoid generalizing when you are talking about
such a huge group of diverse faiths. And no, not all
Churches claiming Christian ARE Christian so that
doesn’t fly either.

Nor are all those who claim the title “Roman Catholic” practicing, believing Roman Catholics. None of the bricks that we could throw back and forth would fly. That’s why I propose we stop lumping different groups of people together, and instead seek to understand them as they understand themselves. No one is going to be benefited by a rider on a high horse. Why not engage at their level?

 

[robwar]

No, the Mary discussion has totally derailed the thread, and it has gone on and on ad nauseum. This was not a thread about Protestant sticking points - it was about whether those of us with Protestant backgrounds feel lumped together by Catholics on this board and elsewhere.

Thank-you. As Op, if anyone want to discuss misunderstanding of Mary, they need to start their own thread. This thread is about generalizations of Protestants by either Catholics or Catholic apologists, It was a continuation of another thread. I haven’t had a chance until now to spend some time correcting the derailment. To my fellow Catholics on this thread, this is not what misunderstanding our fellow Protestant friends have about the Catholic church or its teaching but about viewing and understanding and answering those that fall under Protestantism. I think what was brought up on the other thread was a good point and worthy of it’s own discussion.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s always unrealistic to expect understanding over umbrella statements. I don’t think that’s reason enough to avoid educating the rude masses. This is particularly true in relation to the OP, which considered whether Catholic apologists too often attack “evangelical” or “fundamentalist” beliefs as if they represented all non-Roman Catholic Christians, in general.

I guess I object to the term when it’s misapplied as a catch-all for any Western communion not in communion in Rome. Typically, I’m not a fan of social engineering or “reclaiming” words, but in this case, I’d happily embrace a popular realignment and corrected application of terms. After all, we Lutherans have more in common with Rome than with the Calvinist Presbyterian church down the street.

Well, I think it is debatable whether it’s “more” … but regardless, I do find that, on this forum, we often forget or at least neglect the fact that Lutherans are catholic. Of course, you’ll also note please that “catholic” is another umbrella term (encompassing Rome, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Lutheranism – as well as some small groups like the PNCC), which oddly enough is probably one of the main reasons the term is neglected.

 

[robwar]

Aw come on. Protestants run the gamut of being so
“benevolent” as to include us as a holy and apostolic church
as you pointed out to our being the Whore of Babylon.
Like it or not, there is no way anyone on this board would
be able to avoid generalizing when you are talking about
such a huge group of diverse faiths. And no, not all
Churches claiming Christian ARE Christian so that
doesn’t fly either.

It’s sort of like some of you are saying hey stop thinking
of us as Protestants cause we really are more like you than
those Baptists and Evangelicals over there we will
throw under the bus. They are the Protestants not us.

Mary, I would appreciate it if you stick to the topic of this thread. If you have an issue with Protestants and Catholic teaching and understanding of Mary, you need then to start that thread.

 

[robwar]

Back to the topic. What one of our Protestant friends on the other thread pointed out and I think it is an interesting point is that Catholic apologists often focus on the evangelical/fundamentalist side of Protestant Christianity. I think that poster was from a more liberal stream of things. While I think that may be somewhat true, I also think there are some reasons for it as well. The Catholic apologists that are converts usually are going to speak to and about the stream or branch of Protestantism they came from which usually is evangelical in nature. Their expertise is going to answer back what they previously believed or supported. This would be true of someone like Scott Hahn and Tim Staples. Likewise, apologetics by it’s nature is usually trying to answer critics of the Catholic Church back. usually the most vocal critics of the Catholic Church are found in the more fundamentalist stream and mindset as opposed to a more moderate or liberal side of Protestantism. How many links and threads of CAF are there by someone looking for an answer to something that is pretty anti-Catholic. Usually, those things are coming from fundamentalist or even dispensationalist in nature. Something like got answers.org is a fundamentalist site. However, that site doesn’t speak at all for all Protestants. In fact and somethings to consider is that the best critics of Protestants are other Protestants.

 

[Peter_J]

No, the Mary discussion has totally derailed the thread, and it has gone on and on ad nauseum. This was not a thread about Protestant sticking points - it was about whether those of us with Protestant backgrounds feel lumped together by Catholics on this board and elsewhere.

Thank-you. As Op, if anyone want to discuss misunderstanding of Mary, they need to start their own thread. This thread is about generalizations of Protestants by either Catholics or Catholic apologists, It was a continuation of another thread. I haven’t had a chance until now to spend some time correcting the derailment. To my fellow Catholics on this thread, this is not what misunderstanding our fellow Protestant friends have about the Catholic church or its teaching but about viewing and understanding and answering those that fall under Protestantism. I think what was brought up on the other thread was a good point and worthy of it’s own discussion.

Not trying to be difficult, but I’d have to say “It depends.”

Take for example the “Jesus is Lord” website. It’s a pretty extreme site that twists Catholic ideas (Marian and otherwise) to make Catholicism look awful. It’s not at all representative of “protestants” in general (nor even of Evangelical protestants in general!) which is what makes it relevant to the discussion of generalizations.

However, with respect to taking Mariology as a topic of discussion in-and-of itself, I quite agree with you that that belongs on a new thread.

 

[marywarfield]

Just as all non-United States countries “run the gamut” from fascist dictatorship to laissez faire liberalism. You’ve taken a word intended for a small group of Lutherans at the Diet of Speyer and misapplied it to a broad swath of diverse beliefs. What would you expect?

Nor are all those who claim the title “Roman Catholic” practicing, believing Roman Catholics. None of the bricks that we could throw back and forth would fly. That’s why I propose we stop lumping different groups of people together, and instead seek to understand them as they understand themselves. No one is going to be benefited by a rider on a high horse. Why not engage at their level?

We are not the ones who proudly proclaimed the
name Protestant all these years. Lol. Ever look at
phone book in 1960? Catholic/Protestant were the
two choices and no way it was because Bell Telephone
was trying to please the RC.

 

[robwar]

Another thought on generalization of Protestants is Christian media and books, TV and radio.
Most non-Catholic Christian TV are controlled and run usually by those from the Charismatic movement such as Pat Robertson and the Crouches. Again what is in these networks is usually a conglomeration of word of faith type stuff that in reality is only a small segment of Protestant Christianity, but do give a view that church services on these shows are giant pep type rallies lead by Joel Osteen etc. They are not the norm again of Protestant church and worship services but an uninformed Catholic seeing these things may think so.
Non-Catholic Christian books that become big hits again are written usually by either evangelicals or fundamentalists. Look at the popular Left Behind series. That series promoting the rapture, second coming view that is only held by a small portion of fundamentalists that are dispensationalist. Yet that series was very popular and was an effective tool in promoting a belief system that is not held by a majority of Protestants at all.
Then on top of that, places like the History channel pick up on it and do it’s own shows on it and do not even do justice in interviewing other Christian views that are much more historically taught and more accurate. I guess I’m trying to say that Protestant generalizations sometimes come about by what is being promoted by certain segments of in the media and popular culture.

 

[robwar]

Not trying to be difficult, but I’d have to say “It depends.”

Take for example the “Jesus is Lord” website. It’s a pretty extreme site that twists Catholic ideas (Marian and otherwise) to make Catholicism look awful. It’s not at all representative of “protestants” in general (nor even of Evangelical protestants in general!) which is what makes it relevant to the discussion of generalizations.

However, with respect to taking Mariology as a topic of discussion in-and-of itself, I quite agree with you that that belongs on a new thread.

I appreciate your point but this isn’t about generalizations done by Protestants but generalizations about Protestants by Catholics either in Catholic apologetics or by your everyday run of the mill Catholic in answering our Protestant friends here and elsewhere.

 

[DAML72]

Good post. At the same time I think it needs to be stressed that the fault isn’t entirely on the side of us Catholic posters. Specifically, I have found that a lot of protestants come to CAF with a kind of “victimy” stance, almost like they’re wearing a “kick me” sign.

LOL!

 

[DAML72]

Mary, “Protestant” is a created word whose objective meaning has been misapplied to other groups. Some non-Roman Catholics are Protestant, some not. Calling all of them Protestant is inaccurate. It’s like calling all the world’s governments “dictatorships” because they don’t use the same form of democracy found in the United States. Some non-United States counties are dictatorships, but not all.

The ‘only’ common denominator isn’t “rejection” of the Roman Church (after all, Lutherans and Anglicans and others consider y’all to be part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church), but Christ- even if their understanding of Him might be obscured by false or mistaken doctrine.

Wanna know what to call us? What we are: Christians. If you must be specific, Lutheran. Or Methodist. Or Anglican. Or whatever specific denomination they belong to. Or Non-Roman Catholic, if you insist on defining the world in relation to yourself.

This. Or how about, if you want to engage someone in a conversation about what they believe, then ASK them what they believe and what tradition they come from. Just please don’t go around assuming that all ‘Protestants’ are bible-thumping, rapture-believing, Creationism promoting, Hallelujah-yelling evangelicals.

 

[marywarfield]

I appreciate your point but this isn’t about generalizations done by Protestants but generalizations about Protestants by Catholics either in Catholic apologetics or by your everyday run of the mill Catholic in answering our Protestant friends here and elsewhere.

You do realize this is a sort of meaningless statement?
A very vague complaint? For Catholics what a Protestant
IS is someone who rejects the teaching authority of
the Roman and Eastern Catholic Church. If that is a wrong assumption let me know.

Otherwise perhaps you could give a concrete example
of what your complaint actually is? Is there a specific
generalization you want addressed or what?

 

[steido01]

We are not the ones who proudly proclaimed the
name Protestant all these years. Lol. Ever look at
phone book in 1960? Catholic/Protestant were the
two choices and no way it was because Bell Telephone
was trying to please the RC.

What’s a phone book? In all seriousness, an ad antiquitatem argument is unconvincing to me (particularly when the source is a phone book). Same for a telephone company’s lack of understanding.

Please re-read my posts. I’m not assigning any blame here, so there’s no need to point fingers. I’m simply responding to the OP, who questioned whether the tendency of Roman Catholic apologists to lump all Western non-Roman Catholic Christians into one monolithic “Protestant” church was warranted. Answered simply: it is not warranted nor accurate. It is detrimental to both ecumenical dialogue and Roman Catholic evangelism.

 

[steido01]

…For Catholics what a Protestant
IS is someone who rejects the teaching authority of
the Roman and Eastern Catholic Church.** If that is a wrong assumption let me know. **
…

Attempted.

 

[marywarfield]

What’s a phone book? In all seriousness, an ad antiquitatem argument is unconvincing to me (particularly when the source is a phone book). Neither is the lack of understanding from a telephone company.

Please re-read my posts. I’m not assigning any blame here, so there’s no need to point fingers. I’m simply responding to the OP, who questioned whether the tendency of Roman Catholic apologists to lump all Western non-Roman Catholic Christians into one monolithic “Protestant” church was warranted. Answered simply: it is not warranted nor accurate. It is detrimental to both ecumenical dialogue and Roman Catholic evangelism.

Same response. You are going to have to be more specific.
I realize Baptists are different from Lutherans are different
from Presbyteriabs but the reality remains no matter how
different you are from each other you all still are NOT
RC correct? So how is the Protestant label incorrect?
How is it not warranted for one but is for another?

 

[robwar]

You do realize this is a sort of meaningless statement?
A very vague complaint? For Catholics what a Protestant
IS is someone who rejects the teaching authority of
the Roman and Eastern Catholic Church. If that is a wrong assumption let me know.

Otherwise perhaps you could give a concrete example
of what your complaint actually is? Is there a specific
generalization you want addressed or what?

First of all, I’m not the one with the complaint. I am trying to facilitate a conversation from another thread which has some good points to it. You are demonstrating generalizations of Protestants very well which is someone who rejects the Catholic Church’s authority or just another category in the phone book. As Op, I would appreciate two things from you and the are: 1: don’t derail this thread to a conversation about Catholic teaching about Mary and second, if you don’t understand what the thread is about, then please step back and let the others post that do. I am an adult convert myself. I’ve been involved in a gamut of different Protestant groups and I can understand the comments from some of our non-Catholic friends that they are too often are all lumped together. It isn’t that simple or simplistic to do so,

 

[steido01]

Same response. You are going to have to be more specific.
I realize Baptists are different from Lutherans are different
from Presbyteriabs but the reality remains no matter how
different you are from each other you all still are NOT
RC correct? So how is the Protestant label incorrect?
How is it not warranted for one but is for another?

Is your world so simple that you define others solely because they are not you? If so, the correct term would be non-Roman Catholic, as this forum title suggests.

‘Protestant’ is correct for Lutherans, some Anglicans and a few others because they protested the authority of Rome. ‘Protestant’ is certainly not correct for all non-Roman Catholic Christians, because not all non-Roman Catholic Christians are protesting the Roman Catholic Church. They simply live outside of it - oblivious to it, as far as their insular doctrine is concerned.