On the term Protestant

[akasseb]

As I progress through my theological studies, the term protestant appears more and more disingenuous. This became especially clear while studying ecclesiology. Within Protestantism we have a multiplicity of disparate and competing sects. For instance, what do 16th century Lutherans have to do with 19th century Fundamentalists? Yet, they are grouped together under the umbrella of Protestantism. The gap between the two groups is immense. It seems clear to me that the 16th Lutherans were much closer to Catholicism than the thousands of ‘protestant’ sects that have come into existence since. How effective is it for a body to define itself by what it is not (i.e. not Catholic)? That is something for its opponents to do. Being against something is only a means to the end of being for something.

Another important point is that the early reformers (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) never intended to set in motion a continuously dividing and subdividing Protestant world. They thought (wrongly) that they were each restoring the true Church founded by Christ. This is why the early reformers had contentious relationships and often called the teachings of their opponents heresies.

Frankly, I think the term Protestant should eventually be removed from religious language. It conveys a false unity and distorts the truth. Every religious sect should stand on its own merits. Of course this would not be an end in itself. Hopefully more non-Catholic Christians would come home to the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church. The truth is that all non-Catholic Christians participate in the Faith, in an imperfection way, and always with an admixture of error.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

As I progress through my theological studies, the term protestant appears more and more disingenuous. This became especially clear while studying ecclesiology. Within Protestantism we have a multiplicity of disparate and competing sects. For instance, what do 16th century Lutherans have to do with 19th century Fundamentalists? Yet, they are grouped together under the umbrella of Protestantism. The gap between the two groups is immense. It seems clear to me that the 16th Lutherans were much closer to Catholicism than the thousands of ‘protestant’ sects that have come into existence since. How effective is it for a body to define itself by what it is not (i.e. not Catholic)? That is something for its opponents to do. Being against something is only a means to the end of being for something.

Another important point is that the early reformers (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) never intended to set in motion a continuously dividing and subdividing Protestant world. They thought (wrongly) that they were each restoring the true Church founded by Christ. This is why the early reformers had contentious relationships and often called the teachings of their opponents heresies.

Frankly, I think the term Protestant should eventually be removed from religious language. It conveys a false unity and distorts the truth. Every religious sect should stand on its own merits. Of course this would not be an end in itself. Hopefully more non-Catholic Christians would come home to the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church. The truth is that all non-Catholic Christians participate in the Faith, in an imperfection way, and always with an admixture of error.

The term “Protestant” is essentially based on a relation - protesting against the Catholic Church in the footsteps of Luther. Fundamentally, the Catholic Church teaches Protestants cannot be considered “churches” in the strict sense, because they lack Apostolic Succession.

Now it is quite true that many Protestants lost their way, so to speak, starting with a goal to “reform” Catholicism and instead settling down as an “everything’s fine” community on every other corner. But one thing that many people don’t realize is that while there are differences between denominations and time-spans, there are also striking similarities and double standards embraced by all in every age. :hypno:

Even you recognized that the Early Pretend Reformers violently disagreed among themselves, casting athathmas on eachother - their only point of union was mutual hatred for the One True Church.

 

[yablabo]

As I progress through my theological studies, the term protestant appears more and more disingenuous. This became especially clear while studying ecclesiology. Within Protestantism we have a multiplicity of disparate and competing sects. For instance, what do 16th century Lutherans have to do with 19th century Fundamentalists? Yet, they are grouped together under the umbrella of Protestantism. The gap between the two groups is immense. It seems clear to me that the 16th Lutherans were much closer to Catholicism than the thousands of ‘protestant’ sects that have come into existence since. How effective is it for a body to define itself by what it is not (i.e. not Catholic)? That is something for its opponents to do. Being against something is only a means to the end of being for something.

Another important point is that the early reformers (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) never intended to set in motion a continuously dividing and subdividing Protestant world. They thought (wrongly) that they were each restoring the true Church founded by Christ. This is why the early reformers had contentious relationships and often called the teachings of their opponents heresies.

Frankly, I think the term Protestant should eventually be removed from religious language. It conveys a false unity and distorts the truth. Every religious sect should stand on its own merits. Of course this would not be an end in itself. Hopefully more non-Catholic Christians would come home to the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church. The truth is that all non-Catholic Christians participate in the Faith, in an imperfection way, and always with an admixture of error.

I think it’s both a valid and licit description of their position, whether 16th century Lutherans or 19th century Fundamentalists. The doctrinal “element” among them protests the true Church of Christ. I think you’d be very hard pressed (to the point of impossibility) to find one such group that does NOT, in fact, vocally protest some aspect of the visible Church, the spotless Bride of Christ, left for us on earth.

– Nicole

 

[Newbie2]

OP has a point; “Non-Catholic Christians” is a more accurate term.

However, we’ll never see that change. Protestants will never seek to change that term as non-Catholic Christians implies that they are incomplete, and that’s something that Protestants will not admit (otherwise they’d become Catholic, no?)

But yeah, theologically, Protestant refers more to the deep roots more than to the modern day ecclesial bodies, methinks, at least as to how they seem to see themselves.

 

[Della]

Many modern ecclesial bodies are divorcing themselves from the term “Protestant” because they say they are not protesting anything but are simply Christians who follow Christ as they understand/see him in the Bible. And while that sounds innocent enough, really it’s a backhanded way of declaring themselves apart from Catholicism without having to say so.

Catholicism is the big, white elephant in the theological room that those who are not one with the Church do their best to ignore or deny. Many do simply ignore the Church. I’ve read many a conversion story in which they say they heard little to nothing about the Catholic Church when they were growing up in whatever denomination in which they were schooled and worshiped. To them it was like talking about another country that had nothing to do with the one in which they lived and acted. OTOH, there are groups that make it their sole object to denigrate the Catholic Church, but they are in the vast minority.

 

[JonNC]

As I progress through my theological studies, the term protestant appears more and more disingenuous. This became especially clear while studying ecclesiology. Within Protestantism we have a multiplicity of disparate and competing sects. For instance, what do 16th century Lutherans have to do with 19th century Fundamentalists? Yet, they are grouped together under the umbrella of Protestantism. The gap between the two groups is immense. It seems clear to me that the 16th Lutherans were much closer to Catholicism than the thousands of ‘protestant’ sects that have come into existence since. How effective is it for a body to define itself by what it is not (i.e. not Catholic)? That is something for its opponents to do. Being against something is only a means to the end of being for something.

Another important point is that the early reformers (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) never intended to set in motion a continuously dividing and subdividing Protestant world. They thought (wrongly) that they were each restoring the true Church founded by Christ. This is why the early reformers had contentious relationships and often called the teachings of their opponents heresies.

Frankly, I think the term Protestant should eventually be removed from religious language. It conveys a false unity and distorts the truth. Every religious sect should stand on its own merits. Of course this would not be an end in itself. Hopefully more non-Catholic Christians would come home to the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church. The truth is that all non-Catholic Christians participate in the Faith, in an imperfection way, and always with an admixture of error.

The bolded is most certainly true. One needs only read some of the things said about Luther and Lutherans on some websites to know that they, often, group is with Catholics as “unchristian”.

The term “protestant” has as its advent, not a protest against the Catholic Church, but in response to the 2nd Diet at Speyer in 1529, which tried to limit the activities of the reformers. So, the protest was not against Catholic doctrines, but the attempts to limit religious activity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Diet_of_Speyer

Jon

 

[akasseb]

As I progress through my theological studies, the term protestant appears more and more disingenuous. This became especially clear while studying ecclesiology. Within Protestantism we have a multiplicity of disparate and competing sects. For instance, what do 16th century Lutherans have to do with 19th century Fundamentalists? Yet, they are grouped together under the umbrella of Protestantism. The gap between the two groups is immense. It seems clear to me that the 16th Lutherans were much closer to Catholicism than the thousands of ‘protestant’ sects that have come into existence since. How effective is it for a body to define itself by what it is not (i.e. not Catholic)? That is something for its opponents to do. Being against something is only a means to the end of being for something.

Another important point is that the early reformers (i.e. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) never intended to set in motion a continuously dividing and subdividing Protestant world. They thought (wrongly) that they were each restoring the true Church founded by Christ. This is why the early reformers had contentious relationships and often called the teachings of their opponents heresies.

Frankly, I think the term Protestant should eventually be removed from religious language. It conveys a false unity and distorts the truth. Every religious sect should stand on its own merits. Of course this would not be an end in itself. Hopefully more non-Catholic Christians would come home to the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church. The truth is that all non-Catholic Christians participate in the Faith, in an imperfection way, and always with an admixture of error.

Allow me to make an imperfect analogy in order to make my point clearer. Imagine we have a target on the side of a wall with the center circle representing accuracy. This inner circle is surrounded by a few other larger concentric circles. The center circle represents the the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church. In the next circle are those churches closest to Catholicism, say Orthodox Christians, High Church Anglicans, some currents of Lutheranism, etc. Other ecclesial communities are found in the other circles. There are still others outside the target completely. Now imagine a random shot pattern being overlaid on the target. There will be varying degrees of accuracy. Some shots may miss the target completely on the right, or to the left, or whatever. Now, these misses represent ecclesial bodies. And here is where I make my point. By using the term Protestant we group together all the so-called misses, those near the bullseye and those off the target completely. But the inner circle is closer in proximity to accuracy than it is to the disparate and scattered misses in the rest of the pattern. But a miss to the right and a miss to the left have nothing to do with each other beyond the fact that they are misses. Thus, by grouping them together we create a false unity when it really isn’t there.

Please try to avoid remarking on the weaknesses of the analogy (I am aware of them) and focus on the larger point I am making.