Protestant Communion?

[ajaxbogs]

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.

As an RC, I’ve read about other “non-Roman” Catholic faiths which have valid apostolic succession, many of which are in communion with Rome. It’s fascinating how wide Catholicism is. Too bad many of my fellow Romans don’t recognize this reality. Do you have a link to describe your heritage and other similar Catholic faiths? Blessings.

 

[steve_b]

Yep.

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

I was disagreeing as was the article I presented, with your following comment.

Originally Posted by GKC forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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).
**

 

[steve_b]

As an RC, I’ve read about other “non-Roman” Catholic faiths which have valid apostolic succession, many of which are in communion with Rome. It’s fascinating how wide Catholicism is. Too bad many of my fellow Romans don’t recognize this reality. Do you have a link to describe your heritage and other similar Catholic faiths? Blessings.

Do you have examples of what you’re referring to?

 

[GKC]

I was disagreeing as was the article I presented, with your following comment.

I am confused.

Someone had said “An evangelical Protestant is not going practice the faith nor believe the same things as a High Church Anglican”>

You replied:
.
"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".

And my point was that, if the Ordinariate is an exception, per your comment, it seemed to me you were saying it was an exception to your immediately previous statement, that both an evangelical protestant and a High Church Anglican were protestants. My point was that anyone in the Ordinariate was not a High Church Anglican (anymore), or any other species of the tribe. A person in the Ordinariate is an RC, who worships with the Anglican Use, though possibly formerly a High Church Anglican. Hence, I can’t see how that is an exception to your first “True, but…”

Where am I going wrong?

The Ordinariate is not something unknown to me. I watched the process involving the TAC for ten years and more, before the galvanizing events of early 2009 brought about Anglicanorum coetibus. The AC archives have something over 300 posts I made on the subject, back in the early days.

 

[steve_b]

I had highlighted the following comment

Originally Posted by ajaxbogs forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
As an RC, I’ve read about other “non-Roman” Catholic faiths which have valid apostolic succession, many of which are in communion with Rome. It’s fascinating how wide Catholicism is. Too bad many of my fellow Romans don’t recognize this reality. Do you have a link to describe your heritage and other similar Catholic faiths? Blessings.

I asked the poster to give an example of “fellow Romans” who don’t recognize this reality.?

 

[steve_b]

And my point was that, if the Ordinariate is an exception, per your comment, it seemed to me you were saying it was an exception to your immediately previous statement, that both an evangelical protestant and a High Church Anglican were protestants.

Yes I made that exception in order to recognize the distinction between Catholic and Protestant. Those in the ordinariate are no longer Protestant but Catholic.

GKC:

My point was that anyone in the Ordinariate was not a High Church Anglican (anymore), or any other species of the tribe. A person in the Ordinariate is an RC, who worships with the Anglican Use, though possibly formerly a High Church Anglican. Hence, I can’t see how that is an exception to your first “True, but…”

Where am I going wrong?

That statement is clearer than the one I responded to.

I was responding to the following statement

Originally Posted by GKC forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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).

That was confusing IMV

 

[Nyika]

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

 

[GKC]

Yes I made that exception in order to recognize the distinction between Catholic and Protestant. Those in the ordinariate are no longer Protestant but Catholic.

That statement is clearer than the one I responded to.

I was responding to the following statement

That was confusing IMV

Ah, I see. That makes us even then. One confusion apiece.

 

[Nyika]

No matter how old or beautiful, my experience of being in an Anglican church is the sense that ‘something is missing’! For this reason, I feel truly Blessed that I am part of the Catholic communion.

The High Anglican churches however with all their statues and incense can create the sense that one has walked into a Catholic church. This is a bit confusing. They appear to be Catholics by genuflecting and making the sign of the cross as if they wish they were!

But, at the end of the day we are all human and trying to cope with so many difficulties in our lives. Which ever church we go to all that matters is that we are true to our Christian faith and values and do what we can to help each other!

 

[steve_b]

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.

To rephrase a common phrase, to be deep in history is to be Catholic, and cease being a Protestant which is who you are religiously.

Excerpt

" …The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants. In course of time the original connotation of “no toleration for Catholics” was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. The same man may call himself Protestant or Reformed: the term Protestant lays more stress on antagonism to Rome;… "

From Protestantism

 

[KjetilK]

To rephrase a common phrase, to be deep in history is to be Catholic, and cease being a Protestant which is who you are religiously.

Excerpt

" …The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants. In course of time the original connotation of “no toleration for Catholics” was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. The same man may call himself Protestant or Reformed: the term Protestant lays more stress on antagonism to Rome;… "

From Protestantism

No, I am not a ‘Protestant,’ and it is not your job to provide labels for me. I am a Catholic in the Church of Norway, not presently in communion with Rome, just as a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church is a Catholic in the Church of Russia, not presently in communion with Rome.

The excerpt you cite is just historical revisionism with no basis in reality. The term ‘Protestant’ is merely a historical designation, not a theological, dogmatic or denominational one, referring specifically to those Lutherans within the borders of the Holy Roman Empire (the German-Roman empire) who protested against the Emperor’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms. And the term was restriced to them.

Anabaptists, for instance, were not designated as ‘Protestants.’

 

[zz912]

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.

So you’re agreeing that modern Protestantism is similar to other heresies in the history of the Church, and eventually will end like those other heresies…

 

[steve_b]

No, I am not a ‘Protestant,’ and it is not your job to provide labels for me. I am a Catholic in the Church of Norway, not presently in communion with Rome,

which means you’re not Catholic either.

And you don’t know your own history. Who brought Christianity to Norway? Before there was Lutheranism or ANY Protestantism?
K:

just as a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church is a Catholic in the Church of Russia, not presently in communion with Rome.

he’s not Catholic.
And before there was any Russian Orthodox Church there was the Catholic Church.
K:

The excerpt you cite is just historical revisionism with no basis in reality. The term ‘Protestant’ is merely a historical designation, not a theological, dogmatic or denominational one, referring specifically to those Lutherans within the borders of the Holy Roman Empire (the German-Roman empire) who protested against the Emperor’s enforcement of the Edict of Worms. And the term was restriced to them.

Anabaptists, for instance, were not designated as ‘Protestants.’

From the beginning the Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church. That’s fact. #34
Arguments opposed to that is pure revisionist history, or from one of the Great Heresies in history

 

[ComplineSanFran]

So you’re agreeing that modern Protestantism is similar to other heresies in the history of the Church, and eventually will end like those other heresies…

Nope. Not a bit. I said that the Church is made of many branches. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Chaddicus_Finch]

Are there any confirmed Eucharistic miracles outside of the RCC? To my knowledge, there are none whereas there are multiple confirmed Eucharistic miracles within the RCC.

*Note I said “to my knowledge”, which clearly is not infallible.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Are there any confirmed Eucharistic miracles outside of the RCC? To my knowledge, there are none whereas there are multiple confirmed Eucharistic miracles within the RCC.

*Note I said “to my knowledge”, which clearly is not infallible.

My guess is that most non-Catholic Christians are not much into Eucharistic miracles. It is a very Roman phenomenon.

 

[KjetilK]

which means you’re not Catholic either.

Then what about the Orthodox? The Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Orthodox churches.

And you don’t know your own history. Who brought Christianity to Norway? Before there was Lutheranism or ANY Protestantism?

It was the King. Not the pope. In fact, I don’t even think the pope was informed at the time. You shouldn’t read out current historical context back into the Middle Ages. The bishops were british, but probably with Scandinavian heritage.

he’s not Catholic.
And before there was any Russian Orthodox Church there was the Catholic Church.

You are misinformed. The word ‘catholic’ is not a denominational term, and the Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Orthodox churches.

From the beginning the Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church. That’s fact. #34
Arguments opposed to that is pure revisionist history, or from one of the Great Heresies in history

I’m sorry, but why am I supposed to waste time discussing with a person who won’t even admit when he is clearly in the wrong? The word ‘Protestant’ has a definite, historical meaning. You cannot just define words however you please. Or do you perhaps subscribe to some kind of Humpty Dumpty-ism?

As to the term ‘catholic,’ that means ‘universal’ or ‘according to the whole’ (Gk. καθολικός, from κατά, ‘according to,’ and ὅλος, ‘whole’). It means holding unto the faith as delivered. It is specified by St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, to be present wherever there is a validly consecrated Bishop:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Here, catholicity is bound first to being in communion with a valid bishop, as we also find in paragraph 21 of Lumen gentium, the dogmatic constitution on the Church solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, on November 21, 1964, where the Church and her catholicity is defined as communion with the bishop.

So whereever you find a validly consecrated Bishop, there you find the Catholic Church.

 

[Thorolfr]

whereas there are multiple confirmed Eucharistic miracles within the RCC.

What kind of miracles are you talking about and who confirmed them? Where they confirmed by an impartial and disinterested party?

 

[KjetilK]

So whereever you find a validly consecrated Bishop, there you find the Catholic Church.

Allow me to elaborate a bit more.

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church defines the catholicity of the Church in the treatment of the second part of the third article of faith (paragraphs 811-870). Here catholicity is defined in a twofold way (830-831). I’ll deal with the second one first (paragraph 831): «Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race.» Now, you might believe that only the Catholics in communion with the Roman Pontiff is rightly «sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race,» but then you need to actually produce an argument that conclusively shows that. But the problem comes right after, where the catechism states this:

Each particular Church is “catholic”

Now, what is a particular Church? What does that mean? To understand, we need to take a look at the first point (paragraph 830): «The Church is catholic in a double sense: First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her.» The source cited is Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: «Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.» To understand what he means, you must see it in its full context:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Now, Christ is present in the Church wherever there is a validly consecrated bishop, which is also what you see in 21Lumen gentium, which states that the Church is where the people gather around their bishop: «In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe.» So if catholicity can be defined as the presence of Christ in the Church, and if Christ is present «in the bishops,» and, consequently, present to the Church, then catholicity is defined not as adherence to Rome, but as adherence to a validly consecrated bishop.

And this is in fact what the Roman Catholic Church means by a ‘particular Church,’ as evidence from 17Dominus Iesus. There it is stated that, while being imperfectly in communion with Rome, the churches who possess «apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist» are through this «true particular Churches.» And since each particular Church is catholic (cf. the Catechism, §831), then any Church gathered around a validly consecrated bishop is Catholic, according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

So no, you cannot say that the Orthodox aren’t Catholic, and still pretend to represent Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[pablope]

Then what about the Orthodox? The Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Orthodox churches.

You are misinformed. The word ‘catholic’ is not a denominational term, and the Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Orthodox churches.