Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Topper17]

Hi HH,

I grant that most popes have been good.

But it’s not that they committed murder.

If they were teaching that murder and torture is wrong, but did it anyway there were be no problem.

It’s that they taught that committing torture and murder was the godly course of action, and they were doing the will of the Holy Spirit in perusing such actions.. That’s why my hero Luther has to teach against it, and why Exsurge Domini is seriously wrong.

You are aware that your hero Luther recommended execution of rabbis for the ‘crime’ of teaching the Jewish people the Jewish faith. Right? Aren’t you also aware that Luther recommended, in writing, and publically as well, that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’ (and that 100,000 of them were). You are aware aren’t you that Luther recommended that Anabaptists be executed (after 1530) for the ‘crime’ of not just sedtion, but for peacefully holding Anabaptist views?

The details of these situations are well known and available for posting if you would like. As with most situations like this, it is in the details that we learn their magnitude. Just let me know if you would like to see them.

Your characterization of Luther does not match well with the known factual history of the man. That is one thing and actually is fairly common, but the whole ‘hero’ thing is a whole different matter.

God Bless You HH, Topper

 

[spina1953]

Hi HH,

You are aware that your hero Luther recommended execution of rabbis for the ‘crime’ of teaching the Jewish people the Jewish faith. Right? Aren’t you also aware that Luther recommended, in writing, and publically as well, that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’ (and that 100,000 of them were). You are aware aren’t you that Luther recommended that Anabaptists be executed (after 1530) for the ‘crime’ of not just sedtion, but for peacefully holding Anabaptist views?

The details of these situations are well known and available for posting if you would like. As with most situations like this, it is in the details that we learn their magnitude. Just let me know if you would like to see them.

Your characterization of Luther does not match well with the known factual history of the man. That is one thing and actually is fairly common, but the whole ‘hero’ thing is a whole different matter.

God Bless You HH, Topper

Hi Topper: I would like to add that the Catholic Church never taught that murder was ok. Torture was an accepted form of trying to get at the truth. That being said the Church had rules of much one could be tortured and how long one could be tortured. One needs to remember that torture was very much an accepted way by both the Church as well as civil authorities

 

[marywarfield]

Hi marywarfield: I remember talking to a person who was a Protestant and was told that the Catholic Church chained the Bible so that no one could read it. I told that person that 1) the reason why Bibles were chained in catholic Churches was so that they would not be stolen 2) most people at that time could neither read nor write. 3) Bible being copied by hand often took years to produce and so were extremely expensive and few people could afford to own a Bible let alone a book. That person was not swayed and in the end did not believe. These are just propaganda that so many protestants believe because they were taught that. Just as those propaganda that Luther perpetrated are still believed by those who are taught it.

Yes. And as Luther VERY WELL knew, Bibles were
enormously expensive and took years to hand write.
Therefore? Bibles were chained.
Even after Guttenburg started printing the first 42 lines per
page Bible in 1450, they were still very expensive. However
since most of those who could not afford them couldn’t
read either as you say, Luther had a perfect manipulative
weapon to wield at Church authority which he took
full advantage of.

What is sad is so many Protestants- Lutherans especially-
on here claiming that the old confessions have no relevance
or they have moved beyond the claims of Papal antiChrists
or don’t follow Luther himself blah blah blah.

It’s disingenuous of course. And false. Because the statements made
by Luther and the beliefs first instilled in the laity and
attitude by Luther remain active today. The damage he
caused cant just be stuffed back into Pandora’s box
by claiming as Jon did that “it is historical” and therefore
no one adheres to it. Nonsense.

Firmly I believe if there had never been a Martin Luther
there would not be a Jack Chick. Look at Chick’s
attitudes: oppressive authority, duping of the laity, Pope
as antiChrist. Where dis this first arise? With Jack
Chick? No. Martin Luther and his confessions.

A Lutheran can wax on about progress evidenced
by Pope Benedict the XVI’s picture with the ecumenicals
but the fact remains that the division is clear: Lutherans
see progress in the RCs potential to give up her
dastardly ways and begin to conform to Lutheran
views while Catholics see a Pope filled with charity
and humility with grave concern for Lutheran souls.

One picture speaks a thousand words but two meanings.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hi HH,

You are aware that your hero Luther recommended execution of rabbis for the ‘crime’ of teaching the Jewish people the Jewish faith. Right? Aren’t you also aware that Luther recommended, in writing, and publically as well, that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’ (and that 100,000 of them were). You are aware aren’t you that Luther recommended that Anabaptists be executed (after 1530) for the ‘crime’ of not just sedtion, but for peacefully holding Anabaptist views?

The details of these situations are well known and available for posting if you would like. As with most situations like this, it is in the details that we learn their magnitude. Just let me know if you would like to see them.

Your characterization of Luther does not match well with the known factual history of the man. That is one thing and actually is fairly common, but the whole ‘hero’ thing is a whole different matter.

God Bless You HH, Topper

He wasn’t a peach. And he was a man prone to error just like all of us. He was not a pope or infallible leader or “sweet Christ on earth” for us. I reject those writings of his.

Do you reject those murderous writings of the popes?

 

[spina1953]

Yes. And as Luther VERY WELL knew, Bibles were
enormously expensive and took years to hand write.
Therefore? Bibles were chained.
Even after Guttenburg started printing the first 42 lines per
page Bible in 1450, they were still very expensive. However
since most of those who could not afford them couldn’t
read either as you say, Luther had a perfect manipulative
weapon to wield at Church authority which he took
full advantage of.

What is sad is so many Protestants- Lutherans especially-
on here claiming that the old confessions have no relevance
or they have moved beyond the claims of Papal antiChrists
or don’t follow Luther himself blah blah blah.

It’s disingenuous of course. And false. Because the statements made
by Luther and the beliefs first instilled in the laity and
attitude by Luther remain active today. The damage he
caused cant just be stuffed back into Pandora’s box
by claiming as Jon did that “it is historical” and therefore
no one adheres to it. Nonsense.

Firmly I believe if there had never been a Martin Luther
there would not be a Jack Chick. Look at Chick’s
attitudes: oppressive authority, duping of the laity, Pope
as antiChrist. Where dis this first arise? With Jack
Chick? No. Martin Luther and his confessions.

A Lutheran can wax on about progress evidenced
by Pope Benedict the XVI’s picture with the ecumenicals
but the fact remains that the division is clear: Lutherans
see progress in the RCs potential to give up her
dastardly ways and begin to conform to Lutheran
views while Catholics see a Pope filled with charity
and humility with grave concern for Lutheran souls.

One picture speaks a thousand words but two meanings.

Hi marywarfield: I quite agree with all that you have said. The laity had to be taught and if Luther decided to be the authority and start his own church those who came with him and those who after he died still had to learn and be taught what Luther taught or else they would have not been Lutheran’s just as other Protestant denominational Churches those in them had to be taught and someone had to teach them or how else would they know or believe what they had been taught and think it true?

 

[marywarfield]

He wasn’t a peach. And he was a man prone to error just like all of us. He was not a pope or infallible leader or “sweet Christ on earth” for us. I reject those writings of his.

Do you reject those murderous writings of the popes?

Do you reject the threats of hell fire made by Christ?

Yes these statements make a HUGE difference to you
when they come from an actual Pope than an anti Pope
like Luther.

You give Luther a pass that you cannot give a pope
yet deny papal supremacy. Lol.
Why do YOU think that is?

Why hold the Pope to a higher standard than your
hero Luther if he is just a flawed human being like
Luther? Hmmm?

Or is it that really deep down inside somewhere
you are aware that “papal” authority really DOES exist,
House?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your response.

There’s much to like about the Joint Declaration - but, as written, it comes at a price of watering down both Catholic and Lutheran doctrine.

I agree, after all, you have to start somewhere. It would be wonderful if it would produce some real fruit. Maybe it’s like racism where you have to get a few generations down the road before you see any real difference. On the other hand, I can’t see that the dialogues are having any real impact on the day to day lives of either Catholics or Lutherans or on the teachings of either. It’s been what, 40 or 50 years now and all we have to show for it is - what exactly, just a bunch of really great sounding text representing a lot of intentions and plans?

We still have people like 1st VP Preus of the LCMS writing astonishingly anti-Catholic articles, speaking of the pope as the antichrist and the mass as a work of Satan. Of course the Lutheran Confessions must be defended, ecumenism be damned.

The only way that Lutherans and Catholics are going to achieve any kind of meaningful doctrinal unity is when one or the other or both demonstrate a willingness to compromise on doctrines. Of course we will hear (very shortly) that a TON of progress has been made and that we are virtually in agreement on everything. Of course we are not.

Those who think that the Doctrines of Jesus Christ are important are not going to be willing to compromise on them. Those who don’t care so much what He taught are not so concerned. In addition to the standard Catholic/Protestant divide, I think that just as important is the divide between the do and the don’t cares.

So which of us is going to cave in? The LCMS specifically (including Preus) has made it very clear that they are not in an ‘accommodating mood’, just like Luther.

Neither will be willing to ‘water down’ their teachings to satisfy the other. The question then revolves around what will happen to Lutheranism. How can it be expected to survive long term when it has built-in to it (by Luther) a mechanism which insures that it will, as a whole, continue to become more and more un-orthodox? The more ‘conservative’ Lutherans today, already won’t commune with the less. There is no single point around which Lutheranism can rally and maintain any semblance of unity. People can say that that is not true and point to the Lutheran Confessions – to which I ask:

“So hows that workin out fer you so far?”

I wish it was different but it isn’t. I will begin to sit up and take notice when the Dialogue attempts to discuss the really hard issues like Papal Infallibility, which it has managed to avoid now for how many decades? Neither team is what you would call ‘brave’.

God Bless You Ben, Topper

BTW, on a related note, it’s really not me who is disparaging Luther.

Topper is doing a great job disparaging Martin Luther.

Ben, if the actual facts about the man are disparaging towards him, then maybe, just maybe, the fault lies with him. I’m just sayin………………….

 

[Annie39]

“There are provisions for non-Catholics to receive the sacraments in the Catholic Church. If you like I can post the document from the Diocese of Long Island, New York.”

Well I knew the provisions listed by the USCCB below as well as canon law. Were you in danger of death at any of what seems to be these illicit receiving of the Eucharist? I did notice the Diocese of Rockville Centre that I believe you reside in has a more ambiguous statement. Did the priest get the permission of the Bishop? Did you have moral or psychological difficulty in receiving spiritual help from your own ministers?

“We have 2 daughter-in-laws who are Catholic and commune in my Lutheran parish. Likewise, I have been invited and accept holy Communion from Catholic priests when we have family celebrations baptisms, confirmation, weddings, etc. Have you ever attended Mass in Catholic religious communities?”

Do you think that the fact that you do something ipso facto makes it right? Again did the priest get permission to allow you to receive the Eucharist? Which of the provisions did he use to ask permission of his bishop?

Annie

Please read below

FOR OUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 §4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 §3).
Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in
the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).
It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.
Diocese of Rockville Centre: The person must be unable to have recourse for the sacrament to a minister of his or her own community. This condition is met when gaining access to one’s own he person must be unable to have recourse for the sacrament to a minister of his or her own community. This condition is met when gaining access to one’s own minister poses a reasonable physical, moral or psychological difficulty, or causes serious inconvenience for the minister or recipient.

 

[marywarfield]

O[SIGN][/SIGN]

Hi Annie,

As you probably know, on this thread the claim was made that the use of the name ‘Evangelical Catholic’ by Lutherans is ‘historic’. Like you I doubted that and have asked for the details of that historic usage, three times I think now. The lack of a response so far proves my point, that the use of EC by Lutherans is something very recent. In fact, a Lutheran Professor has addressed the subject:

“Luther and Modern Church History”, by James Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, all quotes from pages 259-60, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”,

“There are at least two respects in which this subject (Luther and modern church history) can easily conceal more than it elucidates. **The more obvious of these is the all too-tempting impetus to ascribe to Luther everything in contemporary Christianity of which the author approves. This tendency is most obvious in the pictures of Luther that derive from German Protestants and Lutherans in particular………” **

Here Kittleson describes a form of what I call the “Legend of Luther”.

"From the perspective of those who seek the most precise and unvarnished truth about Luther possible, the currently most guilty party on this score is the ecumenical movement as it has been pursued in many quarters since Vatican II. Those among them who seek the formal reuniting of separated churches and at the same time carry the label “Lutheran” are particularly prone to seek in him elements that might be used to service their agenda of contemporary institutional ecumenism……One group (which is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther), North Americans all, pursue one version or another of the argument that in his heart of hearts Luther wanted to reform the Church of Rome and deeply regretted the division that nonetheless followed and remains characteristic to this day. Roughly speaking, this party, which calls itself ‘evangelical catholics’, divides into two groups.”

It is worth noting that Kittelson does not refer to these two groups as ‘Evangelical Catholics’ with a capitol ‘C’. The one group according to Kittelson “is very prone to ‘find the good’ in Luther.” I appreciate this statement because I DO love a good understatement. As you know Annie, we see a lot of evidence for this phenomenon here on CA. I have seen other Honest Reputable Protestant Scholars (HRPSs) describe this as ‘under-reporting the negative aspects of Luther while over-reporting the positive aspects.’

Interestingly, Kittelson says that this is strictly a North American phenomenon, which means that it is not a larger Lutheran phenomenon.

“One seeks accommodations between evangelical and Roman Catholic teaching on the central subjects of justification, faith, grace, and the like, while the other gives up on the core of Luther’s theology and turns directly to his (allegedly) undeveloped understanding of ‘the church’ as both spiritual and this-worldly reality.” Kittelson

I have always said that one of the things I appreciate about Lutherans is that they are extremely doctrinal, meaning that they understand the importance of doctrine, and are willing to defend what they believe against what they ‘know’ to be wrong. However, Kittleson states that the two different types of ‘Lutheran Evangelical Catholics’ are much more willing to cave in on doctrinal matters in hopes of reaching accommodation with Rome. The one group is willing to back down on even justification, what the other is willing to redefine (at least for Lutherans) the definition of ‘the church’ as being more in line with a Catholic understanding.

As you know, we have seen a lot of evidence of what Kittelson describes here on CA.

“Some of course take both avenues toward their goal, which is, quite simply, full reunion with the Church of Rome. In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it.” James M. Kittelson, Lutheran Professor of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, pg. 260

This last passage from Kittelson is the money quote (as if the first few weren’t). He admits that the history of Lutheranism itself is an obstacle to reunion with Rome, and in fact Luther himself is an impediment to the unity desired by Evangelical Catholics, that is, ‘unless they falsify, distort, or minimize it’. I would suggest that the Lutheran Confessions are part of the ‘historical record’ which reduces the possibility of reunification.

What is interesting about this text from Kittelson is that it gives us a better understanding of the small subset of Lutheranism which refers to itself as ‘Evangelical Catholic’. It appears that they are more interested in reunion with Rome than in standing fast by Lutheran doctrines. This would explain a lot of the ‘considering swimming’ comments that we hear, and also the idea that Lutherans could possibly come into communion with Rome while somehow retaining their Confessions, which of course is impossible in the real world.

Annie, I would be interested in your thoughts about this quote. Spina, I know that you are interested in this issue so your comments would be welcomed also.

God Bless You Annie, Topper

Fabulous stuff Topper!!! By a Lutheran huh?
Do you perhaps have the date of these quotes? Publication
date?

I would beg to differ with you on one point and that is in your
characterization of “evangelical catholic” as a small subset. In
fact it is a very large offshoot. But since there are offshoots of the
offshoots, defining who is and who isn’t evangelical catholic is problematic.

 

[steido01]

There is no single point around which Lutheranism can rally and maintain any semblance of unity. People can say that that is not true and point to the Lutheran Confessions – to which I ask:

“So hows that workin out fer you so far?”

You mean, like how Roman Catholics point to their Pope? How’s that workin’ out for you so far? I won’t link to them out of respect for forum rules, but how many groups like ‘Catholics for Choice,’ and ‘Progressive Catholics’ exist? Uh-huh. At least the crazies in our denominations have virtue enough to leave.

BTW, on a related note, it’s really not me who is disparaging Luther.

Ben, if the actual facts about the man are disparaging towards him, then maybe, just maybe, the fault lies with him. I’m just sayin………………….

And it’s not really us, or our Confessions that are offensive to the Pope. “Maybe, just maybe…”

 

[Annie39]

O[SIGN][/SIGN]

Fabulous stuff Topper!!! By a Lutheran huh?
Do you perhaps have the date of these quotes? Publication
date?

I would beg to differ with you on one point and that is in your
characterization of “evangelical catholic” as a small subset. In
fact it is a very large offshoot. But since there are offshoots of the
offshoots, defining who is and who isn’t evangelical catholic is problematic.

Hi Mary

Thank you for your very knowledgeable posts. I wondered about “Evangelical Catholic” and had no idea how many there were.

Annie

 

[marywarfield]

Annie39:

It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics." .

I repeat:
It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics."

When can a Catholic receive Communion? When they
believe ALL of the teachings of the RC including and not limited to:
Papal authority, infallibility, abortion, birth control, infallibility of the
Majesterium, marriage, homosexuality, efficacy of the Sacrament of
Reconciliation, purgatory, etc etc.

If a Lutheran could do that he wouldn’t be a Lutheran. Lol

 

[marywarfield]

And it’s not really us, or our Confessions that are offensive to the Pope. “Maybe, just maybe…”

I’m positive that Luther, you or your Confessions are not in the slightest
offensive to the Pope. Not at all.

 

[Novocastrian]

There is no single point around which Lutheranism can rally and maintain any semblance of unity. People can say that that is not true and point to the Lutheran Confessions – to which I ask:

“So hows that workin out fer you so far?”

One could, on your model, point at Christ himself and ask the same thing. I assume that you can see the folly of doing so.

 

[Novocastrian]

You are aware that your hero Luther recommended execution of rabbis for the ‘crime’ of teaching the Jewish people the Jewish faith. Right? Aren’t you also aware that Luther recommended, in writing, and publically as well, that the peasants be ‘slaughtered without mercy’ (and that 100,000 of them were). You are aware aren’t you that Luther recommended that Anabaptists be executed (after 1530) for the ‘crime’ of not just sedtion, but for peacefully holding Anabaptist views?

Topper, I’m genuinely unsure as to what this is meant to prove. Pretty much everyone here (unless I’m much mistaken) has acknowledged that Luther was a flawed man who sometimes said some awful things. Much like many of the great saints that all Christendom recognises as holy. Perhaps you could tell us exactly what you are trying to demonstrate?

 

[Novocastrian]

Hi Topper: I would like to add that the Catholic Church never taught that murder was ok. Torture was an accepted form of trying to get at the truth. That being said the Church had rules of much one could be tortured and how long one could be tortured. One needs to remember that torture was very much an accepted way by both the Church as well as civil authorities

I assume that you’re not suggesting that these rules regarding torture actually justify the practice, right?

 

[Novocastrian]

Do you reject the threats of hell fire made by Christ?

Yes these statements make a HUGE difference to you
when they come from an actual Pope than an anti Pope
like Luther.

You give Luther a pass that you cannot give a pope
yet deny papal supremacy. Lol.
Why do YOU think that is?

Why hold the Pope to a higher standard than your
hero Luther if he is just a flawed human being like
Luther? Hmmm?

Or is it that really deep down inside somewhere
you are aware that “papal” authority really DOES exist,
House?

House takes a slightly harder line on one or two things than I’m comfortable with, but your post seems to bear little relation to what he’s actually said so far. In fact, his entire rejection of Papal authority stems precisely from the fact that he reads the Popes as flawed human beings like Luther himself. You’ll find conversation much more productive if you actually read what other people are writing rather than attempting to score points.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” The great Dutch Reformed/ Episcopalian President of the U.S.

The very thing that threatens old notions and bygone theories is fear of the future. Perhaps a preoccupation on CAF but the difficulty of looking backward is that you miss what is happening right under your nose.

Most definitely, there is strong anti-Catholic sentiment expressed on this thread and ironically the loudest and most offensive voices are Roman Catholics!

Some strongly object to ecumenical developments impulsively. Others are strongly encouraged that Lutherans are returning home. But we are not quite there to officially share the Eucharist. Lutherans are urging Francis, our pope, to remember the 500th anniversary of the Reformation with inter-communion.

In the meantime we can consider the official Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity who urge closer relationships; so close that we would share the Gospel together in prayer and mutual catechesis.

The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries
March 1, 2006

1. We recommend that our churches recognize the real but imperfect communion among our ministers and encourage appropriate forms of pastoral collaboration between our ministries. Specifically, we propose:

that common activities among Lutheran and Roman Catholic bishops be promoted in order to signify the level of communion that exists between them, such as regular joint retreats, co-authored pastoral letters on topics of mutual concern, and joint efforts on matters of public good;

that mutual activities be intensified among ordained ministers, such as regular retreats, homily or sermon preparation study, participation in non-eucharistic prayer services and weddings, and common sponsorship of events or services in the life of the church, including as appropriate other leadership ministries;

that the faithful, in light of their common baptism into the people of God, engage together in catechesis, evangelization, peace and justice ventures, social ministry, and attendance at each other’s diocesan and synodical assemblies; and

that social ministry organizations, educational institutions, chaplaincies, and other church agencies engage together in activities that further the gospel and the common good.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…-salvation.cfm

 

[guanophore]

We have 2 daughter-in-laws who are Catholic and commune in my Lutheran parish.

This is prohibited to Catholics. Their actions are against the teachings of the the Church in which they claim to be members.

I am always curious when people say they are Catholic, and yet reject the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

that tendency of the Protestants is
directly due to the twisted view of Luther towards
Church authority.

Not all Protestants can be lumped together this way.

There are plenty of twisted views that do not emanate from Luther, and his view of teh Church authorities was influenced by his first hand observations of there twisted behaviors. I am not excusing Luther’s vitriol, I would be ashamed to be called after his name after reading his writings, but he had some valid complaints.

I think “Evangelical catholic” is a great way to self describe that does not identify with Luther’s hateful rhetoric.

Consider the Church has historical and
traditional views of Scripture she defends. How many times have you heard a self interpreting Protestant say “But Catholics don’t read the Bible. Their priests
tell them what it means.”

This is simply the old propaganda first perpetrated
by Luther.

Unfortunately rarely do they realize they are actually doing what they accuse Catholics of. Ever try disagreeing with a Protestant minister on Bible interpretation? Not allowed

I think it is unfair to lump all Protestants together this way. There are a significant number of Protestants who value Sacred Tradition. I agree with the point you are making, though, that there are many Protestants, some of them ministers, that believe their perception is the only right one, and you can either agree, shut up, or get out.