Protestant Communion?

[KjetilK]

You’ve already said that. What I asked is this: “Is the Roman Catholic Church in the US protestant for protesting the HHS Mandate?”

No, its not the same thing

Well, that means that you probably have an unhistorical definition of what a ‘Protestant’ is.

The word comes from those who protested, not against the Roman Catholic Church itself, but against the government, more specifically against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and his enforcement of the Edict of Worms, restricting the religious freedom of Lutheran Christians. The Anabaptist (and their descendants; baptist, pentacostals, etc.) are NOT Protestants in this regard. They had nothing to do with the Lutheran Reformation, and were severely condemned in the Lutheran confessions.

This shows us that historically, to be a Protestant meant that you protested against a specific govermental restriction of religious freedom, similarily to what the Roman Catholic Church in the US now do, as they are protesting the HHS Mandate.

Therefore it is very important to have a clear definition of what it means to be ‘Protestant.’

I don’t define myself, as a Lutheran in the Church of Norway, as a ‘Protestant,’ because (1) I don’t protest against any governmental ban of my religious freedom, and (2) because it has become a meaningless term which is made more and more clear each time a Roman Catholic tries to tell me that I am a Protestant, and that Protestants sees the sacraments as merely symbolic.

 

[steve_b]

There are so many branches to the Church and variations of beliefs and traditions that it’s good to qualify who you are speaking of.

To be clear,

The Branch Theory is just that, a Protestant Anglican theory

The Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge such a theory.

The Church is one. Jesus did not establish His Church as a bunch of disperate, and even heretical branches.
C:

An evangelical Protestant is not going practice the faith nor believe the same things as a High Church Anglican.

True, but both are Protestant.

there is an exception of the Anglican ordinariate, a small group of Anglicans that came back in union with the Catholic Church. Meet the Ordinariate’s Ordinary

 

[GKC]

To be clear,

The Branch Theory is just that, a Protestant Anglican theory

The Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge such a theory.

The Church is one. Jesus did not establish His Church as a bunch of disperate, and even heretical branches.

True, but both are Protestant.

there is an exception of the Anglican ordinariate, a small group of Anglicans that came back in union with the Catholic Church. Meet the Ordinariate’s Ordinary

I’d say there was more a instance of a special case of RCs, who entered under the Ordinariate, rather than an exception. Newton is not an Anglican in any sense (though once he was, of course).

 

[Thorolfr]

To be clear,

The Branch Theory is just that, a Protestant Anglican theory

The Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge such a theory.

The Church is one. Jesus did not establish His Church as a bunch of disperate, and even heretical branches.

So you’re rejecting the teachings of Jesus who said, “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:5)?

 

[Michael68]

Well, that means that you probably have an unhistorical definition of what a ‘Protestant’ is.

The word comes from those who protested, not against the Roman Catholic Church itself, but against the government, more specifically against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and his enforcement of the Edict of Worms, restricting the religious freedom of Lutheran Christians. The Anabaptist (and their descendants; baptist, pentacostals, etc.) are NOT Protestants in this regard. They had nothing to do with the Lutheran Reformation, and were severely condemned in the Lutheran confessions.

This shows us that historically, to be a Protestant meant that you protested against a specific govermental restriction of religious freedom, similarily to what the Roman Catholic Church in the US now do, as they are protesting the HHS Mandate.

Therefore it is very important to have a clear definition of what it means to be ‘Protestant.’

I don’t define myself, as a Lutheran in the Church of Norway, as a ‘Protestant,’ because (1) I don’t protest against any governmental ban of my religious freedom, and (2) because it has become a meaningless term which is made more and more clear each time a Roman Catholic tries to tell me that I am a Protestant, and that Protestants sees the sacraments as merely symbolic.

Why weren’t the protestors of the Vietnam war called protestants? I think you have the meaning of protestant confused with protestor

 

[GKC]

Why weren’t the protestors of the Vietnam war called protestants? I think you have the meaning of protestant confused with protestor

No, that’s the historical origin of why the continental reformers came to have the name Protestant.

 

[Nyika]

You’ve already said that. What I asked is this: “Is the Roman Catholic Church in the US protestant for protesting the HHS Mandate?”

I wasn’t aware of the HHS mandate. Thank you for letting me know about this. It is great cause for concern and I am going to look further into the information that you have sent me. Thankyou.
I get your point about querying whether the Catholic Church is protestant for protesting the HHS Mandate. This made me laugh!

 

[Nyika]

Why weren’t the protestors of the Vietnam war called protestants? I think you have the meaning of protestant confused with protestor

Thank you very interesting! I clearly need to get my facts straight before I send any further posts!

 

[KjetilK]

Why weren’t the protestors of the Vietnam war called protestants? I think you have the meaning of protestant confused with protestor

As GKC points out, that is the original usage of the term Protestant. Your protest against that (pun not intended), shows that this historic usage is no longer relevant, and the term is useless. It has now become a meaningless term that tries to, at the same time, unite Anabatists with Lutherans and Anglicans. And this has nothing to do with ‘Protestantism’ being ‘disunited.’ Since I don’t blame the Roman Catholic Church for things done by churches not in communion with her, I expect the same treatment from Roman Catholics.

I could identify as a Protestant in the original usage, but I don’t. And as we see here, Luther himself rejected the term, saying that we ought to either use the term ‘Christian’ or ‘Evangelical.’ (The problem with that, of course, is that in english, the latter term has become synonymous with evangelicalism.) The interesting thing, however, is that the term ‘Christian’ (Ger. christliche, if used as an adjective, or Christen, if used as a (personal) noun) had in German (Roman Catholic) usage been used as a translation of Catholic (which went on in the Lutheran tradition, as we can see here). The main reason I don’t identify as a ‘Protestant’ is that I do not ‘protest’ against any ban on my religious freedom from my government. I am a Catholic Christian, member (and priest) of the historic Church of Norway, which dates back to 995, when it was established by Olaf Tryggvason and his english bishops. It is no longer in communion with Rome, and is part of the Lutheran tradition. That can be bad, but there is no principled difference between this and the situation with the Orthodox churches.

I’ve defended my apostolic succession before, and I do not intent do so in this thread.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

So you’re rejecting the teachings of Jesus who said, “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:5)?

At the RC church that I attend, there was a whole Sunday service (don’t remember which Sunday) that was dedicated to the vine and the branches.

Also, during the Eucharist, I specifically remember the pastor saying “…work of the vines…”

 

[Michael68]

At the RC church that I attend, there was a whole Sunday service (don’t remember which Sunday) that was dedicated to the vine and the branches.

Also, during the Eucharist, I specifically remember the pastor saying “…work of the vines…”

Actually the words are describing the wine. “Fruit of the vine and work of human hands”

 

[KathleenGee]

I read the biography of the wife of Mendelssohn…and they were reacting to the times…and were church hopping to get married…and referred to being members…this around 1803 …of the Evangelicals…not using the word Protestant…they eventually married in a French Reform Church in Germany.

 

[steve_b]

I’d say there was more a instance of a special case of RCs, who entered under the Ordinariate, rather than an exception. Newton is not an Anglican in any sense (though once he was, of course).

ncregister.com/daily-news/anglicanorum-coetibus-after-five-years

 

[Michael68]

I wasn’t aware of the HHS mandate. Thank you for letting me know about this. It is great cause for concern and I am going to look further into the information that you have sent me. Thankyou.
I get your point about querying whether the Catholic Church is protestant for protesting the HHS Mandate. This made me laugh!

The HHS Mandate will force Catholic institutions to accept insurance that pays for contraception and abortion, 2 things the Church is opposed to.

 

[steve_b]

So you’re rejecting the teachings of Jesus who said, “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:5)?

That’s NOT the context that was used nor what I answered to.

Here’s what I responded to

Originally Posted by ComplineSanFran forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
There are so many branches to the Church and variations of beliefs and traditions that it’s good to qualify who you are speaking of.

Jesus said He will build His Church. And He wants perfect unity in the one Church that He builds as well. John 17:20-23 .

 

[GKC]

ncregister.com/daily-news/anglicanorum-coetibus-after-five-years

Yep.

Was there something there you thought I wouldn’t know, in general?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

To be clear,

The Branch Theory is just that, a Protestant Anglican theory

The Catholic Church doesn’t acknowledge such a theory.

The Church is one. Jesus did not establish His Church as a bunch of disperate, and even heretical branches.

y

Ah, but have you ever known a time in 2000 years that there has been a time of unity - without ‘a bunch of desperate, and even heretical branches?’ My knowledge of church history shows just the opposite. There have always been branches, from the Celts to the Nazarenes, to the Cathars, to the Assyrians, to the Donatists, to the Hussites, and on and on and on.

Church history is wonderful fun, exploring the multitudes of branches.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ah, but have you ever known a time in 2000 years that there has been a time of unity - without ‘a bunch of desperate, and even heretical branches?’ My knowledge of church history shows just the opposite. There have always been branches, from the Celts to the Nazarenes, to the Cathars, to the Assyrians, to the Donatists, to the Hussites, and on and on and on.

Church history is wonderful fun, exploring the multitudes of branches.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think to a degree, but is Christ fully there? Absolutely not.

 

[KathleenGee]

As St. Peter said in his second epistle…we are to hold on to the faith and traditions the apostles gave us because they were the chosen witnesses to our Lord…and we witness our Lord at the Last Supper praying that we be one so the world may believe.