Is the term "Protestant" derogatory?

[GKC]

Where is Peter’s successor then? If in Rome, then why do they reject his authority?

I am the eggman, I am the walrus, koo koo ke chu.

Then I’m pleased to meet you. I wondered who the eggman was.

I think I know the carpenter, too.

GKC

 

[Cat_Herder]

Then I’m pleased to meet you. I wondered who the eggman was.

I think I know the carpenter, too.

GKC

Even though you’re Protestant I don’t doubt you know the carpenter’s son. However He established one unified and visible Catholic Church and I pray His Spirit will move hearts to restore all unity.

 

[GKC]

Even though you’re Protestant I don’t doubt you know the carpenter’s son. However He established one unified and visible Catholic Church and I pray His Spirit will move hearts to restore all unity.

A good thought, that.

You sure you’re not Eric Burdon?

GKC

 

[Cheshangle]

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.

Two interesting points. i) It’s transubstantiation that matters. Anything else and then the eucharist is invalid. ii) And any RC who doesn’t go to mass every Sunday is not a real RC.

You’ve just reduced the number of world-wide RCs enormously. Pity.

 

[Cheshangle]

But even these Anglicans are protesting the authority of the Pope, specifically to decree that the Anglican clergy lost their orders and thus their authority to confect the Eucharist. If they didn’t reject that decree then they would be Catholic.

I took communion from an Anglican priest this morning. Do I take it that it was “invalid”?

 

[GKC]

I took communion from an Anglican priest this morning. Do I take it that it was “invalid”?

According to the RCC, yes. And that would be without consideration of whether it was confected by a female or a male.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Two interesting points. i) It’s transubstantiation that matters. Anything else and then the eucharist is invalid. ii) And any RC who doesn’t go to mass every Sunday is not a real RC.

You’ve just reduced the number of world-wide RCs enormously. Pity.

It’s the validity of the holy orders of the confecting sacerdotal minister that matters, along with the form, intent and matter, as with all sacraments. Transubstantiation is the description /explanation of what occurs, when the eucharist is validly confected.

GKC

 

[Cat_Herder]

Two interesting points. i) It’s transubstantiation that matters. Anything else and then the eucharist is invalid. ii) And any RC who doesn’t go to mass every Sunday is not a real RC.

You’ve just reduced the number of world-wide RCs enormously. Pity.

Don’t forget to further reduce the resulting number by removing those who advocate abortion.

All of these may well WANT to be Catholic and that is a good thing. But they cannot receive Communion and that is for their own protection. That is God’s rule, not mine. Read 1 Corinthians 11. Then pray for their conversion.

 

[JonNC]

=Cat Herder;8097281]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.

I fear th thread is spiralling off topic.
Cat, first you said it was Sunday mass obligation, now its Transubstantiation. The target is moving on what does or does not determine what a protestant is. But based on Transubstantiation, the Orthodox are then protestant. And as I said to swiss guy, that muddies the water.

Honestly, and with due respect, the historic meaning of the term has been shown here, and I believe I’ve fairly accurately portrayed the fact that most protestants do not even consider their faith communion choice in terms of what the CC is or isn’t. That you believe it is is fine by me.

Jon

 

[kylemccloughan]

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”.

Very good points. I don’t mind being called a Protestant, but I know some Catholics use the term loosely to just blanket those that aren’t Roman Catholic that they know nothing whatsoever about (and don’t care either).

 

[Cat_Herder]

I fear th thread is spiralling off topic.
Cat, first you said it was Sunday mass obligation, now its Transubstantiation. The target is moving on what does or does not determine what a protestant is. But based on Transubstantiation, the Orthodox are then protestant. And as I said to swiss guy, that muddies the water.

I thought I said that transubstantiation is what makes a Mass a Mass. If there is no transubstantiation then the worship service is not a Mass, even if the service is Catholic. To have a Mass, you need a Catholic or Orthodox priest or bishop. Transubstantiation DOES occur in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy whether or not they use the term. (Catholics are canonically required to attend a Catholic Mass for their obligation, but that does not speak to the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist ).

I am not moving the target; you were aiming somewhere else.

Honestly, and with due respect, the historic meaning of the term has been shown here, and I believe I’ve fairly accurately portrayed the fact that most protestants do not even consider their faith communion choice in terms of what the CC is or isn’t. That you believe it is is fine by me.

They absolutely do. For example, Lutherans are defined by rejection of transubstantiation in favor of the sacramental union.

In order for Protestants to not “faith communion choice in terms of what the CC is or isn’t,” the big white elephant in the room would have to go away. The elephant is that the Catholic Church came first.

 

[JonNC]

They absolutely do. For example, Lutherans are defined by rejection of transubstantiation in favor of the sacramental union.

I’ve just never defined myself as something I reject.

In order for Protestants to not “faith communion choice in terms of what the CC is or isn’t,” the big white elephant in the room would have to go away. The elephant is that the Catholic Church came first.

You see, for many modern Christians who are not Catholic, the CC isn’t “the big white elephant”, it is simply another elephant in the herd.

Like I said, Cat, in my last post, believe what you wish on this.

Jon

 

[Izdaari]

It doesn’t bother me, but it’s not quite accurate either. I’m not protesting anything. But since it’s come to mean any Christian who is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and I am a Christian who is neither, I guess I’m Protestant, like it or not. And it isn’t even necessarily what I’d prefer to be, but since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have doctrines I can’t swallow that are required to join, I don’t have much choice.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’ve just never defined myself as something I reject.

You see, for many modern Christians who are not Catholic, the CC isn’t “the big white elephant”, it is simply another elephant in the herd.

There were no Lutherans in the 1st century. Luther himself admitted that he was relying on the tradition of the Catholic Church for the authority of the Bible.

As with the Bible, Protestants have church buildings only because the Catholic Church from which they schismed had them.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It doesn’t bother me, but it’s not quite accurate either. I’m not protesting anything. … but since both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have doctrines I can’t swallow

Hmm. Please reconcile these statements.

 

[Izdaari]

Hmm. Please reconcile these statements.

That I’m not protesting anything, but that Catholics and Orthodox both have doctrines I can’t swallow? Hmm. A lot of Protestant denominations also have doctrines I can’t swallow, as do nearly all non-Christian religions (Zen and Taoism don’t require you to believe very much, and mostly eschew doctrine). Most political parties have doctrines I can’t swallow as well. I’m not seeing where there’s a contradiction. Nobody can believe everything.

 

[Cheshangle]

It’s the validity of the holy orders of the confecting sacerdotal minister that matters, along with the form, intent and matter, as with all sacraments. Transubstantiation is the description /explanation of what occurs, when the eucharist is validly confected.

GKC

You’re probably aware of the John Donne stanza, which I gather Elizabeth I was quite taken by, that the eucharist is “what God makes it” (and I give thanks and take it). That, of course, does not rule out transubstantiation.

 

[Cheshangle]

There were no Lutherans in the 1st century. Luther himself admitted that he was relying on the tradition of the Catholic Church for the authority of the Bible.

As with the Bible, Protestants have church buildings only because the Catholic Church from which they schismed had them.

Please could you explain your “Quick” but confusing “answer”, that, “Protestants have church buildings because only the Catholic Church from which they schismed had them”?

Proma facie, that is a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

 

[Cheshangle]

Please could you explain your “Quick” but confusing “answer”, that, “Protestants have church buildings because only the Catholic Church from which they schismed had them”?

Proma facie, that is a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

Sorry, prima facie.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Please could you explain your “Quick” but confusing “answer”, that, “Protestants have church buildings because only the Catholic Church from which they schismed had them”?

Proma facie, that is a sweeping and inaccurate statement.

Show me where in the Bible it says to build a church building. This is what the Apostles did:

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:45-47[/BIBLEDRB]

The Temple no longer exists, so if you truly practice sola scriptura you would have to worship at home and sell the church building to feed the poor.

Church buildings come from the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church and are part of your debt to her. Along with the Bible.