Proper Attitude Towards Protestant Theology

[jimmy]

excatholic:

…The RCC makes the claim that the early church in Rome (prior to the 313 date) was called the Roman Catholic Church when in fact it was not. The Church in Rome was an extension of the Jerusalem church westward. … Rome expressed toleration for the Christian church and eventually it became a state religion by the year 380. This state religion was not and is not the same as what the Jerusalem church taught. I can’t believe we still argue about this. The RCC makes it a habit of venerating which would cause anything in history that ever happened in the Christian faith to be a Catholic event. …Jesus was not a Catholic; he was and is a Jew. His disciples were not Catholic either, they were also Jewish. Paul was not Catholic either, he was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin. … I would say it is good bet they were not seeing as the term Catholic was not even used until 110 C.E. Just because the RCC claims the first church was Catholic does not make it right or true. God bless you friend.

Actually the Catholic Church has never said that the early church was called the Roman Catholic Church. We say that it was called the Catholic Church. The word Roman was not introduced until the reformation by the reformers. The proper name for the church is Catholic.

Although the early Christians were Jews, they still called themselves Christians. The only Christians who were around were the Catholics. The Church in Jerusalem and the Church in Rome were part of the same church. There were 3 patriarchs in the church in Rome, Jerusalem, and Antioch. They were all in communion with eachother as you can see at the council of Nicaea and the following six councils where all these patriarchs are present or have delegates present. Two other patriarchs were created around the fourth century that were also present at these councils.

All Christians were part of this one church. The only ones who were not part of this one church were the heretics declared so by the church. Some heresies include the Arian heresy, the Nestorians. monothilites, monophysites, and many more.

In the mid second century Irenaeus traced all the bishops of Rome and saud that all bishops should listen to the church of Rome because of its pre-eminent authority. Here is a quote from a Jerusalem Patriarch.

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638):
Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Another from the same man.

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation …the new heresy. (Sophronius,[quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council]
, Mansi, x., 893)

If you are going to make claims about the teachings of the Catholic church in the 300s you are going to have to give some references because your word means nothing because I do not think you were a witness. If you give references make sure they are either from around that time or they reference documents from that time.

 

[Church_Militant]

The toughest part of this is that they are so confounded aggressive and often w/o charity in their evangelism of Catholics.

It gets me down to have someone give me hard time (or my sons!) about the faith. I know my way around apologetically & so long as they are respectful & honest I’ll talk with any old body, because I love being Catholic again & love to share it. I was Prot for over 35 years though I’m a cradle Catholic that went to 12 years of Catholic school.

In the end it was an attack on the Blessed Virgin that brought me home. Now I’m a consecrated M.I. (Milita Immaculata. see www.consecration.com) & committed to spreading the faith. I was a real “witness” when I was Prot & it kinda goofs them up to witness to me because I turn it all around on them. My favorite thing is to shift the conversation to communion & ask them why they don’t follow the scriptures in John 6, & 1 Cor 11:23–29. It blows them away when I share my testimony of what the Eucharist means to me. When we share about how powerful our prayer life is & all the answers to prayer from the rosary & even the deep love we have for the Bible…and ofcourse the wonderful personal relationship we have with Christ. I almost laugh when they ask if I’ve ever received Jesus into my heart as Lord & Saviour & have to quietly tell them yes…every time I go to communion. As one author put it…“Talk about an altar call!”

God, I LOVE being Catholic!

DEO GRATIAS!

 

[JGC]

montanaman:

Catholics don’t like being called “Roman Catholic?” That’s a new one. I’m proud of it.

Historically a term of abuse in these parts. Never ever use it myself.

 

[gus]

Most American Catholic’s are Latin Rite Catholics( Roman Catholic was a perjoritive term applied to the Western Church by Anglican’s)
Like many insulting terms, over time they are actually embraced and lose their original meaning. We use the word catholic to apply to the many different Rites all in Communion with the Chair of St Peter.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

excatholic:

The Roman Catholic Church was legally recognized by the Roman Emperor Constantine, and, in 380 it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.The RCC makes the claim that the early church in Rome (prior to the 313 date) was called the Roman Catholic Church when in fact it was not. The Church in Rome was an extension of the Jerusalem church westward. When Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313C.E. Rome expressed toleration for the Christian church and eventually it became a state religion by the year 380. This state religion was not and is not the same as what the Jerusalem church taught. I can’t believe we still argue about this. The RCC makes it a habit of venerating which would cause anything in history that ever happened in the Christian faith to be a Catholic event. The RCC effectively uses the spin that “catholic means universal” when we know it to mean the “Roman Catholic Church” hence RCC. Jesus was not a Catholic; he was and is a Jew. His disciples were not Catholic either, they were also Jewish. Paul was not Catholic either, he was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin. Are we starting to see a pattern here, could it be possible that the first Christiansin Rome were not Catholic either? I would say it is good bet they were not seeing as the term Catholic was not even used until 110 C.E. Just because the RCC claims the first church was Catholic does not make it right or true. God bless you friend.

To call the first Christians in Rome “Catholics” is anachronistic. So is the application of ideas about orthodoxy that were current in 110, to Christians in 60 or so.​

BUT, this does not mean that there was not a true continuity in faith, life, and communion, between a Roman Christian addressee of Paul, and a Roman Christian of 50 years later. In this second sense, the Christians addressed in Romans were “RCs” or “Catholics” - but only in this sense.

And this Roman Church of 110 was in turn in continuity with the Church in Rome of 380: which is not to deny that by the standards of 380, Christians of 110 may have had some very “heretical” ideas. Just as the Christians of 380 might well (in some senses) be “heretical” by the standards of 1980, or of today.

Unfortunately, historical detail is often elusive, and there is a huge amount of it; & most Christians have neither time nor leisure nor means to be Church historians - so details tend to be ironed out into an oversimplified notion of Church history, or of parts of Church history. All human beings know far less than they do not know - that’s life

The notion of doctrinal development is an “umbrella-term” for a number of suggestions as to how these historical and theolgical problems can be reconciled.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

The problem with Protestantism is it offers a “feel good faith”. I attend Latin mass on Sundays and my father’s response is, “more people would go to church if it was fun.” It boggles my mind.

Further more protestants have done a good job of making the Catholic Church out to be the boogey-man, in bout our youth and in the media. Im 18 and finished my RCIA classes 5 years ago and trust me I learned nothing in 8 years to combat heresy or defend my beliefs. All my friends epically females growing up couldn’t wait to “convert” to Protestantism. Why? They say because they are more open and “tolerant”. Catholics have been slow in educating our youth in this generation epically here in the archdiocese of Newark. All we can hope for is another Pope Pius X.

Moving away from that I’ll give a quick snip from the liturgy yesterday. The priest said there are three kinds of religions. Supernatural, Judaism/Protestantism, and natural. Catholic Christianity is supernatural because it has true divine revelation and has a clear concise system of sanctity. Judaism has a true divine revelation but it’s incomplete. Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are natural religious because they have bits of truth along with the combination of man natural religiosity. The priest said we should NOT tolerate these other faiths. We should constantly do spiritual combat with them. For if we as Catholics know we are the one true faith and the only road to the top of the mountain, how dare we say that others are acceptable.

If one system is so pure, and just, and perfect, how could anything less me equivalent? It is not. Today’s multiculturalism, feel-good-ism, and doyourownthing-ism has opened up the world and the American people to this new form of spirituality. Now people’s idea of praising God is going to Barnes and Nobles buying a self – help book and, like my father said, “making church fun.” Modernism has destroyed tradition, which in turn has eroded the grace and power of the Church. Vatican II hasn’t helped.

 

[katherine2]

A.Pelliccio:

The problem with Protestantism is it offers a “feel good faith”.

The contrary problem is evidenced by that old saw about the (Jansenist-influenced) Irish “they seem to confuse being uncomfortable with being religious.”

 

[maendem]

sabrinaofmn:

I have been a Protestant always, and now I am in RCIA. I was raised in Tulsa, OK, the buckle of the Bible belt, in a foot-stomping, tongues-speaking, slain-in-th-spirit kind of church. I knew nothing of Catholicism, but as I studied the Bible I drew away from the dancing in the isles kind of church. I then found my way into the Methodist church, which felt much more right, and through study of theology, I am now in RCIA. I never rejected the Catholic Church because I never knew anything about it. I couldn’t be a separated bretheren, because I never knew what a Catholic was.

Sabrina, I think you bring up a crucial point, one that ought to be carefully acknowledged by more Catholics. I read a lot of posts in this forum wherein all kinds accusations against “Prots” are slung around, mocking or demonizing their “blatant rejection of God’s truth as revealed in the Catholic Church.”

I think we need to differentiate between the willful and knowing rejection of Catholicism perpetrated by Luther and other Reformers, and those who, like myself, grew up Protestant centuries later, without knowledge of alternatives.

I feel that many Catholics can’t quite comprehend how very removed Catholicism is from the experience and knowledge of most Protestants. To most people outside the Catholic Church - ex-Catholics excluded - the Church isn’t even a blip on the radar.

Catholicism pops up now and then in movies or on the news, generally painted with a broad, messy brush, and other than that, doesn’t enter the conscientiousness of most people except as the notion of an oppressive and outdated institution.

When I became Catholic, I was astonished to find that my new Catholic parish and friends often worked themselves up into a frenzy over perceived “attacks” from Protestants and really viewed non-Catholic Christians as active heretics out to destroy the Church.

Anti-Catholic proseletizers (sp?) aside (and yes, they sure do exist), I wish that more Catholics could acknowledge that the vast majority of Protestants do not care about the Church. They are not attacking anything, they are not rejecting anything, they simply, quietly, and politely think Catholics are misguided. (Those Evangelic Christians who make a life-long point out of ridiculing the Church simply aren’t representative of all Protestants, or even the majority.)

Most Protestants don’t care to investigate the truth about the Church for the same reason that most of us aren’t spending weeks seriously investigating the claims of the Moonies or other cults.

I don’t mean to ruffle any feathers or defend the abounding misconceptions about the Catholics Church. I do think that we Catholics need to be careful not to come out guns blazing when discussing “Protestants.” The notion of being a crusader for the Church in “hostile Prot waters” can be a little ridiculous if the “enemies” aren’t even aware you exist, or don’t really care that you do.

 

[Shibboleth]

Invite and bring them to your table and sit them in the front as a place of honor. Give them the best of your meat and drink. Wash their feet and teach them. Show them what it is to be Christian and Catholic that is all you can do… This is what I would do if a Catholic walked into my Protestant household.

Preach the Gospel always and when necessary use words.

• Saint Francis of Assisi

 

[Kevin_Walker]

As Catholics we need to realize that protestants are to be referred to as ‘ecclesiastical community’ as revealed in the Sept. 2000 Vatican document Dominus Iesus.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[AndyF]

Msgr. FJ Sheen, Fr. Rumble amd Carty courtesy Radio Replies, Vol1:

Q. Christ meant protestantism to be, or it would not exist.

A. On the same reasoning you would argue that because sin exists Christ meant it to be. Christ predicted heresies would arise, but distinctly forbade men to abandon the Church and originate them.

Andy

 

[Beaver]

michaelp:

BTW: Protestant do not like the name “Protestant” any more than Roman Catholics like the name “Roman Cathlic” (seeing as how the name itself is an oxymoron). We, Protestants, still see ourselves as catholic Christians since we are part of the universal Body of Christ. It might be better if we were called evangelicals since this is another theological term used to discribe a group. This would describe the activity of the group and catholic would describe the nature of the group. So in this sense, Protestants are evangelical catholics! Or at least that is how we see ourselves–even if you disagree .

To be a part of the universal Body of Christ you need to believe in the Real Presence. I know you do not. So what are you trying to pull here.

 

[Sowndog]

RobedWithLight:

Protestantism is still heresy. No doubt about it. However the Church today prefers not to call them as such in their faces in the spirit of reconciliation and ecumenism. As one old saying goes, honey attracts more flies than gall.

Gerry

Be careful with the term heresy. Protestants are not heretics in the same sense as Gnostics were in the early Church. Heretics denied fundemental Christian teachings, rendering Christianity impossible. For example, some heretics claimed that Christ was not human. This would mean He did not truly suffer or die, so we are only ‘apparently’ saved.
Protestants are not heretics in the sense that their beliefs do not contradict the rules of Christian faith as listed in the Nicene Creed.

 

[MaggieOH]

Madaglan:

I know that the proper way to address Protestants is as “departed brethren.” However, although I recognize that Protestants share with Catholics many beliefs, I cannot help but recognize that Protestants are very hostile to Catholic beliefs.

In the first few centuries the Church showed little respect towards those who were not Christians who followed the apostolic faith. St. Polycarp, when asked by the heretic Marcion whether or not he recognized him, responded: “Of course I recognize the offspring of Satan.” A famous story tells of Peter fleeing a bathhouse when he finds out that the heretic Cerinthus is inside. In fleeing, Peter is recorded to have said, “Let us flee lest the roof fall in…for within is Cerinthus, enemy of the truth.”

The fact that Protestants are slightly different than the Gnostics may be the reason that we should call them “departed brethren” instead of “enemies of the truth,” as the early Christians called the dissenters in the early Church. Ok, my big question is somewhat connected with all this: If Protestants are simply our “departed brethren,” how should we view Protestant theology? When I say Protestant theology, I mean mostly the ideas that are not shared by the Catholic Church in any way: sola scriptura, sola fide, invisible church, only symbolic (as opposed to sacraficial) Eucharist, premillenialism, dispensationalism, etc.

the correct term is “separated brethren” because they have not as yet departed from this earth.

MaggieOH

 

[TPJCatholic]

sowndog,

Mainstream Protestant Churches hold to the nicene creed, others do not.
They also do not hold the full canon of scripture…they reject fundamental teachings about the saints, prayer, Mary, purgatory, the Pope, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, most do not hold all seven sacraments, they reject the Holy Priesthood, etc. etc.

The have manufactuered doctrines like eternal security and once saved always saved.

We hold a love and belief in Christ in common, along with the truth that Christ is our Savior, and the Second Person of the Holy Trnity.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Beaver,

I very happily refer to myself as a Roman Catholic Christian.

 

[Sowndog]

TPJCatholic:

sowndog,

Mainstream Protestant Churches hold to the nicene creed, others do not.
They also do not hold the full canon of scripture…they reject fundamental teachings about the saints, prayer, Mary, purgatory, the Pope, the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, most do not hold all seven sacraments, they reject the Holy Priesthood, etc. etc.

The have manufactuered doctrines like eternal security and once saved always saved.

We hold a love and belief in Christ in common, along with the truth that Christ is our Savior, and the Second Person of the Holy Trnity.

That is true, TPJ, but for me the word ‘heresy’ conveys the idea of a teaching that contradicts true Christianity on the most fundamental issues, without which Christianity could not be. Many Protestants are most certainly Christians, whereas the heretics of old were not.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Sowndog:

Be careful with the term heresy. Protestants are not heretics in the same sense as Gnostics were in the early Church. Heretics denied fundemental Christian teachings, rendering Christianity impossible. For example, some heretics claimed that Christ was not human. This would mean He did not truly suffer or die, so we are only ‘apparently’ saved.
Protestants are not heretics in the sense that their beliefs do not contradict the rules of Christian faith as listed in the Nicene Creed.

From my reading of the New Advent, I believe Protestants are viewed as schismists, and rebellious schismists at that, and not heretics.

Please read:

newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

and review: DISTINCTIONS

 

[TPJCatholic]

sowndog,

I agree–yet the goal should be for all believers to be Catholic.

 

[marineboy]

anyone who says that every single Protestant should be converted is wrong and is not consistent with the constant teaching of the Church–Protestanism should cease to exist