I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Only when coming from ignorant lips.
- Status
B
Bran_Stark
Guest
“Protestant” is a neutral theological describer of long history, and I’m quite happy to apply the title to myself. Sometimes I do see words like “Prot”, though, which don’t sound near as nice.
N
NFrancis
Guest
Thank you everyone for answering. I have concluded that “Protestant” is not derogatory.
K
kylemccloughan
Guest
I would for the most part say that I do not take offense to being called a Protestant. However, I do feel that many Catholics use the label much more often than they should to show the insignificance in determining the differences between different Protestant groups.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The Catholic Church is doing the same thing so your definition would make the Catholic Church Protestant.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Then after the Peace of Westaphalia there should have been no more Protestants since there was nothing left to protest.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
This is the Catholic definition of the term: If you’re (1) a Trinitarian Christian (2) **protesting **the authority of the Pope, and (3) you aren’t Orthodox, you’re a Protestant.
Since 100% of non-Catholic non-Orthodox Trinitarian Christians fall into this definition, it is used to describe all of them since it addresses the lowest common demoninator. It isn’t meant to brush over the strong similarities between, say, conservative Anglicanism and Catholicism.
C
Cheshangle
Guest
No, it’s not, although some high Anglicans don’t like it.
My only beef concerns members of this forum who lump all Protestants together.
Incidentally, some RCs get very worked up about being referred to as “Roman Catholics”.
C
Cat
Guest
If someone is offended by a name, then it is an offensive name to that person or group.
You have no way of knowing that unless you ask. If you ask and someone says, “Yes, I find that offensive,” then don’t use that name. That’s not difficult.
Think about the various names for African Americans over the years. Many older people still use the “n” word because it’s what they grew up with and they don’t intend it to be racist or offensive. But the fact is, it’s highly offensive and should never be used. Same for the name, “colored people.” There was a time when this name was used without intent to offend, but now most find it offensive. So it shouldn’t be used, even if you don’t intend to offend.
As a former evangelical Protestant, I still keep up subscriptions to several magazines and denominational newsletters, including Christianity Today, the magazine that is the “voice” of evangelical Christianity. These publications use the name “Protestant.” So I think it’s fair to use it in conversation. But if someone says, “I’m not Protestant, I’m a Christian,” I think it’s charitable to say, “OK,” and refer to them as Christians in all conversations.
You have no way of knowing that unless you ask. If you ask and someone says, “Yes, I find that offensive,” then don’t use that name. That’s not difficult.
Think about the various names for African Americans over the years. Many older people still use the “n” word because it’s what they grew up with and they don’t intend it to be racist or offensive. But the fact is, it’s highly offensive and should never be used. Same for the name, “colored people.” There was a time when this name was used without intent to offend, but now most find it offensive. So it shouldn’t be used, even if you don’t intend to offend.
As a former evangelical Protestant, I still keep up subscriptions to several magazines and denominational newsletters, including Christianity Today, the magazine that is the “voice” of evangelical Christianity. These publications use the name “Protestant.” So I think it’s fair to use it in conversation. But if someone says, “I’m not Protestant, I’m a Christian,” I think it’s charitable to say, “OK,” and refer to them as Christians in all conversations.
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
Dear Swiss,I think, Swiss, this muddies the water even more. Certainly Orthodoxy does not have its roots in the Western Church in the way we Lutherans do, and neither do the Old Catholics, PNCC, etc.
Alas, the problem with an outdated term
Jon
it is what it is. A protest against the Papacy; a protest against all things Marian; a protest against Confession to a priest; a protest concerning the true and real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist; a protest about the number of books in the Bible…and it goes on and on.
It is what it is…protestation against the One, True church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven, and of which He left Peter as it’s first pope…264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI…and the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her.
May God grant long life and health to Pope Benedict XVI - De Gloria Olivae.
Hence, the dated nature of the term.Then after the Peace of Westaphalia there should have been no more Protestants since there was nothing left to protest.
I think, Cat, that you will find that very few modern day protestants view themselves in protest of Rome. The average layman in the pews of his/her local church is not thinking, I’m here to protest the Catholic Church, or the primacy of the papacy. For most, it just doesn’t cross their minds.
Jon
T
TinaG
Guest
Jon,
I agree with you. To most Protestants the Catholic Church is simply irrelevant and they give it little or no thought, except when they read an article in the paper about it, if they do.
The idea that Protestants spend energy protesting the Catholic Church is pretty absurd. Maybe a few spend some energy on it, but not most.
-Tina “Protesting” G
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
All of them are Protestant because they oppose some teaching of the Catholic Church. At a minimum they oppose the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. Thus they reject the teaching authority of the Church. They may not be picketing in the streets but they express their opposition in action.
Let’s say I get a summons for jury duty. If I refuse to go I am protesting the authority of the judge. If the mail gets delayed and I never get the summons, I have still disobeyed the judge, but not deliberately. Thus I have not protested anything. However, there are no summonses to Mass (other than church bells) because everyone knows that Catholics go to Mass on Sunday. Thus every Protestant has made a deliberate decision not to be Catholic so as not to go to Mass, ergo, a protest. That is why if you ask one why he does not go to Mass, he will give his not being Catholic as the reason.
Practically speaking, “Protestant” is the only accurate term to describe non-Catholic non-Orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Terms like “Evangelical” describe the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as well and any attempt to redefine such terms so as to exclude those Churches would carry an offensive implication that those Churches are not as “Evangelical” as the ones claiming the name.
As I said before, most laity in the pews have never even considered, have no experience with or about, the teaching authority of the Church. For many, they are not expressing any kind of opposition to this teaching authority. Either they are ignorant (as in not educated in it, not in any derogatory sense), or it is irrelevent to their faith journey. You may be able to attach that label to someone like me, but not to most.
But they don’t see your going to mass any different than they say their going to Sunday worship. They make a decision to go to their worship because that’s where their parents always took them, or that’s the denomination they’ve always gone to, not out of some choice specifically against the local Catholic parish, or the Catholic Church in general. The Catholic Church is the one down the street, accross from the Episcopal Church, where some of their friends go. That’s all. I suspect that, most times, if you ask a nonCatholic why they don’t go to Catholic Mass, they’ll say because we go to the Presbyterian (or whatever) Church. It is just where they go.
2 points.
- Then you are choosing to change the initial, meaning of the term.
- Why exclude the Orthodox? If anyone is guilty what you say above, the Orthodox are.
Indeed evangelical does describe any Christian who preaches the Gospel.
Jon
C
Cheshangle
Guest
I don’t “oppose the Sunday obligation to attend mass”. I take communion every Sunday, and most Wednesdays. If I’m on holiday abroad and there’s no Anglican church around I go to a RC Church instead. Until recently I gather that I would have been allowed to take the sacrament in such circumstances, but it appears that that’s been changed, so I just accept a blessing, and feel better for it.
I know quite a few RCs who don’t go to mass every Sunday.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The point is the Eucharist. Specifically the TRANSUBSTANTIATION of the Eucharist. That is what makes a Mass a Mass. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have transubstantiation and everyone else doesn’t. That includes the Anglicans–just read the 39 Articles. So if the transubstantiation of the Eucharist is “is irrelevent to their faith journey” then they are protesting transubstantiation just as they are by not attending Mass. That makes them Protestant.
If that omission is deliberate and without excuse… Then they aren’t really RCs, they’re claiming to be RC but aren’t for precisely the above reason. If I claim to be the eggman or the walrus that doesn’t make me either.
G
GKC
Guest
The Articles are not normative for Anglicans, in general. Some affirm them, some reject them, in part, some remove them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter.
Amongst the Anglicans who affirm the Real Presence, some affirm Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1.
All sorts of Anglicans.
GKC
*Anglicanus-Catholicus
*
G
GKC
Guest
They would then be Roman Catholic, in their eyes. In their eyes, they are Catholic, by virtue of their Apostolic succession. You, of course, see it differently.
Yes, I’m very familiar with the story of Apostolicae Curae.
GKC
- Status