Looking for an appropriate term or phrase

[Radical]

How would you (and others of your denomination) feel about being labelled “our unreformed brethren”? It is charitable in that it acknowledges you as “brethren” and thereby recognizes that we do worship the same Lord. Further, it stresses the truth that you still are yoked by erroneous additions to the pure faith. Would that be welcomed by you?

It seems that you and others here think that in order to maintain our integrity we should not call yours “the Catholic Church” b/c we don’t believe that it is either “The Church” or that it is universal. Further, given that history shows how the idea of a somatic real presence was an innovation that grew out of Antioch and that the “Catholic” Marian doctrines were unknown by the early church, it would seem that calling the early church and your church by the same name would be inconsistent with informed history. Now, you find “Romish” offensive (and I understand that you are not alone in that regard), so I wouldn’t want to use that term. What would you suggest that we call your church so that we maintain our integrity and are true to the history of Christianity? The Unreformed Church of/in the West might work…UCW for short. Yours can still be viewed as a lung, with the Unreformed Church of the East as the other lung. Those of the Charismatic variety can be the heart (given their inclination for feelings)…I think the Anglicans and the Reformed could be the brain (left and right hemispheres respectively), the Lutherans can be the arms (they did the first heavy lifting to reform the church) and the Anabaptists/Baptists could be the legs (given that they have carried the church to a more faithful walk)…this too is charitable in that it still includes the UCW and the UCE within the body of Christ.

 

[joandarc2008]

How would you (and others of your denomination) feel about being labelled “our unreformed brethren”? It is charitable in that it acknowledges you as “brethren” and thereby recognizes that we do worship the same Lord. Further, it stresses the truth that you still are yoked by erroneous additions to the pure faith. Would that be welcomed by you?

It seems that you and others here think that in order to maintain our integrity we should not call yours “the Catholic Church” b/c we don’t believe that it is either “The Church” or that it is universal. Further, given that history shows how the idea of a somatic real presence was an innovation that grew out of Antioch and that the “Catholic” Marian doctrines were unknown by the early church, it would seem that calling the early church and your church by the same name would be inconsistent with informed history. Now, you find “Romish” offensive (and I understand that you are not alone in that regard), so I wouldn’t want to use that term. What would you suggest that we call your church so that we maintain our integrity and are true to the history of Christianity? The Unreformed Church of/in the West might work…UCW for short. Yours can still be viewed as a lung, with the Unreformed Church of the East as the other lung. Those of the Charismatic variety can be the heart (given their inclination for feelings)…I think the Anglicans and the Reformed could be the brain (left and right hemispheres respectively), the Lutherans can be the arms (they did the first heavy lifting to reform the church) and the Anabaptists/Baptists could be the legs (given that they have carried the church to a more faithful walk)…this too is charitable in that it still includes the UCW and the UCE within the body of Christ.

The point that you make about Baptists/Anabaptists and the Lutherans being part of the Ecclesial Body would be correct within your analogy but honestly without the belief in the True Eucharist they simply cannot be deemed “Church.”

 

[benidict]

How would you (and others of your denomination) feel about being labelled “our unreformed brethren”? It is charitable in that it acknowledges you as “brethren” and thereby recognizes that we do worship the same Lord. Further, it stresses the truth that you still are yoked by erroneous additions to the pure faith. Would that be welcomed by you?

It seems that you and others here think that in order to maintain our integrity we should not call yours “the Catholic Church” b/c we don’t believe that it is either “The Church” or that it is universal. Further, given that history shows how the idea of a somatic real presence was an innovation that grew out of Antioch and that the “Catholic” Marian doctrines were unknown by the early church, it would seem that calling the early church and your church by the same name would be inconsistent with informed history. Now, you find “Romish” offensive (and I understand that you are not alone in that regard), so I wouldn’t want to use that term. What would you suggest that we call your church so that we maintain our integrity and are true to the history of Christianity? The Unreformed Church of/in the West might work…UCW for short. Yours can still be viewed as a lung, with the Unreformed Church of the East as the other lung. Those of the Charismatic variety can be the heart (given their inclination for feelings)…I think the Anglicans and the Reformed could be the brain (left and right hemispheres respectively), the Lutherans can be the arms (they did the first heavy lifting to reform the church) and the Anabaptists/Baptists could be the legs (given that they have carried the church to a more faithful walk)…this too is charitable in that it still includes the UCW and the UCE within the body of Christ.

:coffeeread: as a former baptist, i like to refer to myself, not only as a Catholic convert, but as a Recovering Fundamentalist…i think your other names have some interesting merit though. i like them. although i would have some disagreement with your take on history… peace

 

[benidict]

Well I’m not feelin’ it anyway.

I know I’m in good company because they said the same thing about Jesus.

I wasn’t talking about you. I was saying He is showing me grace and mercy despite what you all are saying about me.

:console::hug3: can you feel it now my friend? peace to you and yours.

 

[Radical]

:coffeeread: as a former baptist, i like to refer to myself, not only as a Catholic convert, but as a Recovering Fundamentalist…i think your other names have some interesting merit though. i like them. although i would have some disagreement with your take on history… peace

understood and Peace to you

 

[joandarc2008]

understood and Peace to you

And Radical please do not get me wrong - I am not calling Protestants heretics, etc. I am a former Protestant. But if the Church is defined by Apostolic Succession (or a claim to it or a wish to be in communion with it whether it be through the Eastern or the Orthodox Churches) and the Eucharist than those Christian Communities that do not believe in the Eucharist are simply not Churches but Communities - it is not meant to be demeaning. However I do believe that throwing words like heretic around simply do not help matters. It is one thing when discussing when discussing “heresies” among each other and obvious heretics like gnostics but telling someone they are a heretic is not going to open up any lines of communication.

 

[jericho777]

:console::hug3: can you feel it now my friend? peace to you and yours.

Truth be known I’m a big boy and know this is a battle ground of sorts. My goal is to be fair and honest with all here no matter how much I may disagree with their position. Thank you for your love. I see your location I hope and pray you stay safe. Is there any love there?

 

[PbloPicasso]

Oh, sure there is
You said it. But really, you were born and raised a Catholic and then denounced Catholicism by asserting falsehoods, usurping authority and doing all sorts of nasty things in regards to the Faith ?

What makes you believe He has not shown us the same Grace and Mercy ? He has quite mercifully sustained His Church through 2,000 years of turbulent history, surely this is a Grace.
Pax,
Tim

Well, what if he was baptized Catholic, raised Protestant by a protestant parent while the other parent was absent, then later brought into Catholicism by the other parents efforts who dumps them on another protestant wife from an illicit marriage performed by a Catholic priest. Then the heretics of the Catholic Church taught him that homosexuality is okay, masturbation is okay, the Eucharist is only a symbol, no one is going to hell, confession is not really necessary, priests made passes on him, fasting is a waste, women should be priests soon, etc, All of these things are being taught by so called “Catholic” clergy, religious and lay people occupying Church positions. Why would you call the man or woman that left this a heretic? What if they were so confused and never got a straight answer from priests who told him that they would never understand? Are they really heretics or are the people that pushed them away the heretics? Either way its harsh language to use. But the real heretics are those that know fully well what they are doing and purposefully defy God. There is a huge difference. Not everything is at it seems. Percentage wise, I’ve met more misguided Catholics than I have misguided “separated brethren”. Just something to take to heart before we off with their heads. Truth comes in time for those who seek it. Some of us take longer than others.

Welcome to the real world of confusion.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Lets simmer the rhetoric down folks.
I want a nice, quiet Sunday night.
Don’t feel like going to the storage shed to retrive the ban grenades.
Post with charity.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have a question about our Brothers in Christ who may be protestant. I consider them to be our brothers in christ but in an imperfect way. I don’t like the way I am phrasing this and I am looking at a way to demonstrate that they are not in communion with the church but are heading in the right direction but falling short somehow. What is the best way for a Catholic to describe the state of a Protestant in regards to their state of being as it relates to the Catholic church?

Non-Catholic?

 

[PbloPicasso]

Eric Hilbert, I like your candidness wrapped with humor.

 

[cooterhein]

The term “Roman Catholic” came into use in the 16th and 17th centuries because there was no previous need to distinguish between different kinds of Catholics. (In the English language, that is). During those centuries, I don’t think Romish really meant anything different than Roman, but it has fallen out of use since than and can now be used (however infrequently) as a more ancient word if you want to recapture a more violent time within Christendom. Similar things are true of terms like “papist,” “popedom,” “papistry,” “paparchy” (maybe?), and “popery.” They came up with a lot of different words for the same thing during that time, and some fell out of use or were never accepted by Catholics as the words that they wanted in order to refer to themselves or their leaders. For example, Romish Catholic and Roman Catholic were (initially) equally viable options. They mean the exact same thing. Catholics have been more accepting of Roman and less accepting of Romish, though, and as it usually is in language, it was a mostly arbitrary decision. Because of this, the far more commonly used phrase is now “Roman Catholic.” You can still find the word “Romish” out there, but you’ll mostly find it in material that was written before the word largely fell out of use. Once it did, though, non-Catholics haven’t done much to try and bring it back. For the most part, we actually listen to you and we allow you to choose what you want to be called while letting other words fall out of use.

In other words, when there are multiple options and one is vastly preferred by Catholics, you can generally expect non-Catholics to go ahead and use the term that you prefer. Even when you’re not around and we’re just talking to each other. So while I accept and acknowledge that certain terms for Catholics have fallen out of use, all I ask is that you follow our example and try to make sure the term “separated brethren” is something that goes the way of words like “Romish” or “popedom.” You know what they are, but they’re rarely if ever used.

I wasn’t at all familiar with the slur for Irish Catholics that you brought up, and I’m sorry that there were some European people a few centuries ago that would do that kind of thing. I’m glad that it hasn’t survived to the present day or made its way into use in the last couple of centuries of American history. These aren’t good things, and I’m glad that my people aren’t really doing any of it to your people at this point. Even if we were, though, it wouldn’t be right, and it wouldn’t make it any more right for you to do the same kind of thing to us.

This is a debate board, in the real world I’d obviously refer to Protestant clergy as politely as possible. They are in any case of course, no matter how imperfectly, part of the Church in a wider sense. I will not call an Anglican priest Father however nor refer to Protestant pastors by such titles.

An Anglican priest, huh? You don’t have to call him Father. You know why?

He’s not your father.

Why wouldn’t you refer to a Protestant pastor as a pastor? I didn’t think that was an official ecclesiastical title or anything. What else would a “pastor” be? Is it unavailable for use because you use it to refer to someone else? If not, go ahead and call him what he is- he’s a pastor. He’s not your pastor, but he is someone else’s pastor.

Calling someone “Father” strongly implies that you believe you’re under his headship in some way, so you don’t want to do that if it’s not true. But calling someone a pastor doesn’t necessarily imply anything about your relationship to him. I think you could call a Protestant minister “the pastor of that church” just as easily as you could refer to an Anglican priest as “a priest.” I guess I can understand why you wouldn’t want to say “Hey pastor” in casual conversation, but around my church, you wouldn’t be expected to do that. He’d actually ask you to call him by his first name. He would, however, be a little confused if you refused to acknowledge that he actually is a pastor, and he’d politely ask you why that is.

I use the custom that was common at one time in Ireland of calling them sir to indicate I respect their choice and do consider them a man of God.

But they are men of God. That’s what they’ve devoted their lives to doing, not just as a vocation but as a profession. There’s no sense in which they are not men of God. Their stated purpose and the actual thing that they do involves being “men of God.” They have specific titles for what they do, too, and in the sense of their titles, they are who they say they are because they are the ones who get to pick their titles. You’re not their title-picker.

If I went any further I would lack self integrity. Presenting it as choice between two truths would be dishonest, the Church has valid orders, as do some other groups such as the OO, EO etc. who are valid Churches. Other groups do not have this distinction. That is the Catholic understanding of the matter.

If you refer to your own church as a “valid church” and every other church as a “church,” would that solve your problem?

The OP asked for a polite way to refer to Protestants. I still view the phrase ‘Our seperated brethren’, as the most effctive as it stresses both charity but does not lose sight of truth.

If the OP really wants a polite way to refer to Protestants, some (name removed by moderator)ut from Protestants would be entirely consistent with that goal. If you are looking for a way to reject that (name removed by moderator)ut, there is no polite way to do that.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Non-Catholic?

Non-Catholic Christians? He is referring to Christians, I believe.

 

[PRmerger]

The term “Roman Catholic” came into use in the 16th and 17th centuries** because there was no previous need to distinguish between different kinds of Catholics. **(In the English language, that is)

This is a peculiar proposal, coming from a non-Catholic. It indicates that you understand that the Catholic Church was there,* from the very beginning * of Christ and His apostles.

"The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as the Way (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those who followed Christ began to be called Christians beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26).

As early as 107 A.D., that same group was referred to as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. That means that the Christian assembly was probably calling itself the “Catholic Church” during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. In other words, the earliest Christians initially called their church “the way” but changed the name to “the Catholic Church” within the same generation. As a side note, it is interesting that the believers in Antioch coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church”.

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day.

The Catholic Church existed before the Edict of Milan and, of course, continues in existence to this present day–one and the same as the Church founded by Jesus upon Peter, the rock–originally posted by Randy Carson here.

 

[cooterhein]

I made a mistake in my earlier post. I misread something. Where I thought it said something like “I don’t believe Protestant pastors are men of God,” it was actually an affirmation of this. I somehow managed to see the wrong thing on the first three passes through it. I went on to say “But they are men of God” (and so forth) which I now see was quite unnecessary, and we were in agreement to begin with.

Sorry about that, everybody.

Edit- and now it looks like the message went away. And that’s fine; I posted it during cleanup of the thread and it should have gone away, too. But I would still like to rectify the error in some way.

 

[joandarc2008]

Lets simmer the rhetoric down folks.
I want a nice, quiet Sunday night.
Don’t feel like going to the storage shed to retrive the ban grenades.
Post with charity.

That is by far the best mod posting ever!!! Happy Gaudette Sunday and may that be something we all agree on!