- Status
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I too find the term Protestant, except in its use in a few well-defined historical discussions, to be pretty offensive. Not because of anything inherent in the term itself, it’s just that it’s used by Catholics in such a careless and inaccurate fashion—and if people don’t prefer to be called Protestant, why force this label upon them?
Actually, I find the CA apologists to be among the worst offenders in this regard and so I often wonder if Catholics might be taking their cues from them. And when Tim Staples is on Catholic Answers Live, he is probably the worst of the worst.
Usually the apologetics claim involves setting up some false dichotomy: “Catholics believe X, but Protestants believe Y” and here’s why Catholics are “right”. But beliefs of groups falling under the umbrella “Protestant” are so extremely diverse that you can never lump them together in this manner without being grossly inaccurate. Any claim being made about “Protestant belief” is going to be incorrect, by definition, probably 95% of the time.
I think Catholic Answers does a great job of explaining the Catholic faith and dispelling misconceptions about Catholicism. But Catholic Answers probably also creates and perpetuates just as many distortions and misconceptions about “Protestants.” I don’t see how this is being responsible or being dedicated to the truth. Why not work toward understanding what people actually believe? Then if you have disagreements, fine. But don’t waste people’s time misinforming them with strawmen.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Amen.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
I also agree. The very use of the term Non-Catholic “Religions” seems so odd to put fellow Christians into the same mix as non-Christians reflects poorly on CAF intent to dialogue with non-Catholics [including Orthodox]
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not suggesting that two wrongs make a right of course, but I’d like to point out that CAF isn’t much worse or much better than Protestant forums. (As a matter of fact, sometimes I think the whole Internet is just one big problem.
)
R
robwar
Guest
I agree with some of the things you say. When i was in college which was a state university, I took a course called Christianity. At the time, I was going to a charismatic non-denominational church. It was taught by a liberal Protestant theologan. The course was set up to study the three branches of Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant from each of their prospectives. It was an interesting course. Yes, I do agree that on this forum Protestants are too often lumped all together because Protestantism is so broad and from one extreme to another (quaker, liberal at one end and fundamentalist at the other) yet if one considers themself a Christian and they are not Catholic or Orthodox, they are Protestant even if they might not think they are. Tim Stables is a Catholic convert from AoG. Now with the question originally, if these people are offended by the term, I would out of politness, call them Christian to keep an open door and dialogue. the reality is that there is three branches in Christianity and if you are not Catholic or Orthodox, then you are the later, Protestant.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
For purposes of very broad classification (the three branches of Christianity in your example) in very restricted circumstances, the term is fine in my opinion. However once you get into “Protestants believe X…” territory, whatever follows is going to be in error, simply by definition.
The basic problem with converts like Tim Staples, especially those of the more evangelical/fundamentalist variety, is that they mistakenly think they understand “Protestantism” when in fact all they know are the beliefs and practices of the specific denomination (or sometimes even just the local church) that they came out of–and sometimes not even that very well. Then whatever they believe “Protestantism” to be (which for Tim Staples is the equivalent of whatever happened in the Assemblies of God a number of years ago) becomes generalized over a very diverse set of religious groups. This leads to even more unfortunate errors and misconceptions which are multiplied by their listeners in these forums. (“Sola scriptura” probably being the most prolific case in point on both Catholic Answers Live and here.)
For example, I see Catholic Answers is coming out with a book entitled The Protestant’s Dilemma. I don’t know since I haven’t read it, but based on the reviews in Amazon.com I would bet very good money the book is chock full of the exact same types of errors from nothing else than simply the fact they use the term “Protestant” in the title.
Spreading error is offensive; so why does Catholic Answers do this? Catholics don’t like it when people spread misconceptions about them (and rightly so!) but why is it ok when the shoe’s on the other foot? Whatever happened to “Do unto others?”
Admittedly, the exact same thing also occurs on programs like “The Journey Home” so it’s not just a problem isolated at Catholic Answers.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Yes, I’ve never felt like the “But everyone else is doing it too…” defense was very strong. (I’ve noticed people use this rationale for the sex abuse scandal quite often.) Not even your own mother would have let you get away with that one!I’m not suggesting that two wrongs make a right of course, but I’d like to point out that CAF isn’t much worse or much better than Protestant forums. (As a matter of fact, sometimes I think the whole Internet is just one big problem.
And I’m sure you mean something like “Fundamentalist Christian” forums
Since there are no such people as “the Protestants” they can’t actually operate forums.
S
steido01
Guest
This, this, this. Times 1,000. Particularly in the Apologetics section. What ever happened to learning about each other? Why do people feel the need to [wrongly] interpret others’ religions?
A
adf417
Guest
I thought the discussion was about “the label” not what someone might do with the label. Sure we all commit error when we say “Protestants, Catholics, or Orthodox believe X” when in fact they do not. The difference is that there can be instances where one Protestant does believe something that another Protestant does not, making the statement seem in error to those Protestants who believe otherwise but still being a true belief not necessarily in error.
The problem is that of the three, “Catholic” is the only true monolith. You can talk about the Catholic faith, defend it, offend it, or do whatever you want and in the end you are discussing “one” thing. If an individual Catholic believes something outside the faith they are simply a bad Catholic. If they profess something nor orthodox to the teaching they are simply wrong. Their belief does not, in any way, define the Catholic faith. Sure, their belief could also be “a true belief” but this belief is in error as a Catholic and can be definitively proven as such.
I cringe every time I feel the need to use the words “Protestant” or “Orthodox” and even more so now after reading this thread and apologize if I have ever, in the past, used it offensively. But now I wonder, more than ever, what do we call the “other guys” who…
…do/do not believe in infant baptism.
…do/do not believe in the OHCA church.
…do/do not believe in the real presence.
…believe in sola scriptura unlike what the great minds have taught us here it should be like.
…chose to accept all, some, no councils as authoritative.
…believe praying to saints is/is not idolatrous.
…and the list goes on.
I hope you get the point without listing every variable but the confusion comes when you begin to combine any or all of these differences into a monolith for discussion purposes.
Peace!!!
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t argue with that, not at all. I’m just trying to keep things in perspective.
See the aforementioned link,And I’m sure you mean something like “Fundamentalist Christian” forums
(Btw, I’m curious whether you would likewise say that there no catholics.
)
R
robwar
Guest
I am not sure what errors you are having a beef with. Converts like Tim Stables and others will speak to the ideas and beliefs that they knew and grew up with while in Protestant Churches but that doesn’t mean that they are speaking for all Protestants because even they say they aren’t. The background of Tim Stables is going to be much more common than lets say someone from a liberal Protestant background like myself. I had in the Methodist Church the religious ed director who didn’t’ believe in the virgin birth. Denominational liberal Protestantism is much more in the decline and smaller numbers than evangelical/charismatic groups that Tim Stable came from. Plus there is movement from and between Protestant groups as they split and reform etc and so. When I attended non-denominational Charismatic churches, everyone there was an ex-something 99% being Protestant. That is the dilemma of Protestantism. Now may you don’t want to think of yourself as “Protestant” but, if you are not Catholic which as one poster pointed out is monolithic, or Orthodox which has more divisions, then you come out of the reformation in some manner, even if you don’t think so. Usually when the Catholic apologists are addressing things taught in the wide river that never ends of Protestantism, they address things that are most commonly taught and thought of which is going to be in the evangelical/fundamentalist stream of things. Likewise those are the groups that are or can be most anti-Catholics and our Catholic apologist are usually trying to answer some of those charges. Likewise even for the uninformed, unchurched person, their view of even Protestantism is going to shaped by what they see on TV in the roles of Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers who represent even a small fraction of Protestantism.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
The very title of the thread reveals the conflict/ confusion of using the term “Protestant”. Just like the word, ‘Christian’ can mean so many different and in some case contrary opinions/ beliefs. I thought only Anglicans/ Episcopalians and Lutherans preferred to not be called ‘Protestant’ but now I understand that many other non-Catholic Christians also resent being lumped together under one name.
Part of the problem is that some Christians do not identify the faith in precise words, such as the ecumenical creeds and also don’t accept basic historic dogma. Perhaps one reason the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue was so ground-breaking is that both denominations allude to and have concise doctrinal beliefs including the Church Fathers and additional Confessions.
This is where I have been disappointed when reading the apologists in CAF. It’s as if some Catholic apologist haven’t kept up with the Vatican.
Part of the problem is that some Christians do not identify the faith in precise words, such as the ecumenical creeds and also don’t accept basic historic dogma. Perhaps one reason the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue was so ground-breaking is that both denominations allude to and have concise doctrinal beliefs including the Church Fathers and additional Confessions.
This is where I have been disappointed when reading the apologists in CAF. It’s as if some Catholic apologist haven’t kept up with the Vatican.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Son of Niall posted this article in another thread 'Three Ways Catholic Tradition Bolstered My Protestant Faith" forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11840344#post11840344
christianitytoday.com/women/2014/march/three-ways-catholic-tradition-bolstered-my-protestant-faith.html
christianitytoday.com/women/2014/march/three-ways-catholic-tradition-bolstered-my-protestant-faith.html
P
Peter_J
Guest
Yeah, as if!
Seriously though, I want to point out that not everyone equates Catholic apologists with Catholics-who-have-access-to-the-internet.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I think this is a good idea. The “kids” seem very sweet and considerate
S
St_Francis
Guest
In considering the issue of what to call non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians, I have a question.
What should we call them? It seems that the main objection is that various non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians do not want to have their beliefs ignored in favor of those of another group of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians, so merely calling them something other than Protestant would defeat the purpose.
Is this a question perhaps of etiquette? That if I, a Catholic, am speaking with a Methodist or a Baptist, should discuss the teachings of their particular ecclesial community rather than assuming they share the teachings of other ecclesial communities? This seems reasonable.
However, there are also wider issues at hand. One is that the other ecclesial communities do all seem to have arisen from the same foundation of thought: private interpretation. This issue of authority is common to the various denominations and non-denominations.
The other is that many non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians reject the Catholic Faith out of hand. We are considered simply wrong and beyond the pale *in their community’s teaching. *They consider each other within the pale, and us outside it. So in a way, there is a similarity between them which separates them from Catholics.
What should we call them? It seems that the main objection is that various non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians do not want to have their beliefs ignored in favor of those of another group of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians, so merely calling them something other than Protestant would defeat the purpose.
Is this a question perhaps of etiquette? That if I, a Catholic, am speaking with a Methodist or a Baptist, should discuss the teachings of their particular ecclesial community rather than assuming they share the teachings of other ecclesial communities? This seems reasonable.
However, there are also wider issues at hand. One is that the other ecclesial communities do all seem to have arisen from the same foundation of thought: private interpretation. This issue of authority is common to the various denominations and non-denominations.
The other is that many non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians reject the Catholic Faith out of hand. We are considered simply wrong and beyond the pale *in their community’s teaching. *They consider each other within the pale, and us outside it. So in a way, there is a similarity between them which separates them from Catholics.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
To me, it’s really just a matter of mutual respect. Perhaps there are some people (maybe living in Northern Ireland for example) who wish to be referred to as “Protestants” but I would say almost no one in the U.S. prefers that designation over something else. So if someone wishes to refer to him or herself as a “Baptist” that would (logically) be a good name to use.
If someone introduced himself as “Stephen,” I would be loath to then call him “Steve” or “Stevie”; much less “Joey” or “Jack.” So part of this is showing mutual respect and part of this is just the simple need to be accurate and prudentially avoid perpetuating error.
I think you could say that all non-Catholics are united in their rejection of papal authority as the Catholic Church has laid it out. Beyond something pretty simple like that, all over-generalizations are just that.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That’s certainly fair: Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc are all protestants, but if they prefer being called Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc I’m happy to call them that. (By the same token, Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, and Catholics are all catholic, but we generally prefer to be called Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, and Catholics.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Quick question, Peter. I’m curious what criteria you use to define Anglicans and Lutherans as catholic vs. Presbyterians, Methodists, etc?
- Status