Protestantism is Misrepresented

[Mfaustina1]

Andyman-

I can understand why you think that Catholic.com might be misrepresenting Protestantism, but it isn’t. The reason they focus so heavily on Pentecostalism and “non-denominational” evangelicals is because it is frequently these groups of protestants who directly attack the Catholic faith and Church. This is why they were established; to defend the Catholic Faith against such attacks. I am a convert to the Catholic Faith from Pentecostalism, lastly of the Assemblies of God “variety”. So, I hope you don’t take too much offense at this site. God bless you! - Mfaustina1

 

[kevinfraser]

Andyman1517:

Many of the posts

How many have you read?

Andyman1517:

Protestants know very little about Catholic doctrine, but the same can be said about Protestants and this site.

Please tell me about Protestant doctrine?

Andyman1517:

Believe every single word of the Bible to be literal

Literal doesn’t mean true, does it? Catholics are the original “Bible Christians.” Check biblechristiansociety.com
The Bible is a Catholic document the Church gave to the world.

Andyman1517:

Sola Scriptura simply means that the Word of God … contains mistakes…
It was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I can’t sort out this contradiction. Please help?

Andyman1517:

strange signs of the Holy Spirit.

Have you never heard of a Brown Scapular? Now that’s a strange sign of the Holy Spirit. I wear one. Here’s why: fatima.org/essentials/requests/gargrcn.asp

Andyman1517:

This is a pentecostal thing,

Biblical, actually. And therefore also Catholic:
newadvent.org/cathen/14776c.htm
Unfortunately, phony glossolalia is found among Protestants and Catholics alike, though.

Andyman1517:

some people … grouped “protestants” as a whole with the likes of Benny Hinn.

I don’t know how many posts say this, but the one thing that absolutely unites all 37,000+ protestant ecclesial communities (according to the IRS) is a categorical rejection of the Magisterium. The ones who do investigate it with complete intellectual honesty… many have swum the Tiber because they learned what the Church actually teaches. I don’t think Benny Hinn reads Encyclicals.

Andyman1517:

Baptize Adults. Only Baptists, Pentecostals/Charismatics, and non-denominationers practice this.

Catholics too, if requested or needed.

Andyman1517:

Baptism is a sign

…instituted by Christ that confers grace.
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

"…Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior" that a person is then “saved”…

I call this a Protestant Doctrine because aren’t there some congregations where this belief is required for membership? Not all just some. See: catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

Andyman1517:

growing close to God takes many years and rarely has some sort of epiphany that suddenly makes them become “saved”

Ever hear of Mother Teresa? 45 years of spiritual dryness. Christ demands not faith but obedience – “Follow me”

Andyman1517:

As a believer of Reformed Theology

What’s the Authority of this particular Theology?

Andyman1517:

I personally believe

This is the whole point of Protestantism. “My Opinion” not The Church’s Teaching on faith and morals, guaranteed error-free to the end of time by Jesus, to Peter and the Apostles, and continued to this day through good men as He commanded them.

Andyman1517:

taken some of the glory away from the sovereign God.

Can’t happen Andy. Not to God. I agree with you about moral relativism and modernism being evil, though!

Andyman1517:

I guess Reformed Theology just isn’t practical to people today

I don’t know what this means, being a lifelong Catholic. The concept of picking out one Theology you like better than the others, to me is like the concept of going shopping for air. It’s so unneccessary that it just sounds uninformed. No offense intended.

Andyman1517:

difference between anti-catholicism and legitimate theological differences.

What is the difference? As a Catholic, I know there is no such thing as “dissent” from Catholic Teaching on Theology. Oil and water.

Andyman1517:

Please, I would love to hear what your problems with protestantism is and respond to it.

Andy, you are reaching for something more than you have. That’s why you’re here.

 

[pnewton]

Andy,

Thank you for the post. I, too, have seen misrepresentation of certain protestants, specifically Baptist. They are the only ones I am qualified to speak on.

I do not believe there is any malice (usually) but rather sometimes speaking in generalities is easier than striving for accuracy. I will do my part and try to point out less precise ways of representing Baptist. Others will have to address what they know.

Of course I am sure you understand that even as we strive to be as accurate and charitable as possible, we do not wish to get bogged in the mire of political correctness. We could spend so much time debating terms, we never communicate. (I have seen that happen, too.)

 

[Peace-bwu]

Andyman1517:

After reviewing quite a bit of catholic.com and reading many of the posts on this board, it seems to me that protestantism is terribly misrepresented. Many of the posts tend to sway toward identifying all protestants with fringe groups like Pentecostals who blend the line between cult and Christianity.

I have read much about how many Protestants know very little about Catholic doctrine, but the same can be said about Protestants and this site.

In Christ,

Andrew

I am truly sorry your particular denomination is misrepresented. I think a big reason why is that there are so many protestant denominations with different beliefs( even from church to church )that it makes it difficult to know them all, and to speak of certain beliefs as a whole. Another reason is that many of the protestants in these forums actively attacking the Catholic Faith, seem to be the variety of protestant you refer to in your post… so many of the replies are being voiced to a protestants with many of the views you mention as being “fringe” I would guess many of the more mainstream protestant denominations, such as you belong to, are not as concerned with trying to attack and evangelize Catholics. and are not as argumentative and frustrating to debate with.

Again, sorry your particular beliefs are misrepresented, but you can change that if you want through your posts! In a way you are in the same boat as Catholics! Our faith is misrepresented all the time, and we are here to set the record straight for those interested. I hope you can find a niche in these forums.
Peace Be With You!

 

[Andyman1517]

Howdy Kevin! I’m glad you took an interest in my post and would be glad to try to answer the queries you posed.

Q: How many posts have you read?

A: I stand by my original answer:Many.

Q: Can you please tell me about Protestant doctrine?

A: Wow, this could take forever and I really don‘t have the time to write a novel for you. I will, however, say that all Christians accept the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, and the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon. For information on my denomination visit www.pcusa.org (Presbyterian Church USA). For information on prevailing theologies visit www.reformed.com (reformed theology-here you’ll find the Westminster Confession of Faith, Augsburg Confession, Cannons of Dort) as well as your local library for information on Wesleyanism and whatever else you want to know.

Q: Literal doesn’t mean true does it (pertaining to the Bible)?

A: Of course literal doesn’t mean true. I consider the Bible to be true but not literal. I’m pretty sure you understand. Stop being difficult.

Q: How can the Bible contain mistakes and still be inspired by God?

A: You’re a Catholic, you should know this answer. People transcribed the Bible. These people made mistakes despite the fact God inspired them to write it.

Q: Have I heard of a Brown Scapular? Isn’t a strange sign of the Holy Spirit?

A: Yes I have heard of it. Do I believe that the Holy Spirit would specifically single you out, or perform a miracle because you wear one? I’m not God, so I can’t answer that, but I feel in my heart the answer is NO. God works in mysterious ways, but I disagree with Pentecostals when it comes to their “speaking in tongues” and most of their “healings”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying God doesn’t or can’t heal, it just seems that most Pentecostal healings are big shows. And yes, I’m aware “speaking in tongues is Biblical, but I’m also aware that for the most part, modern day manifestations seem phony.

Q: Don’t Catholics baptize adults?

A: Yes, as do all Christians. I think you should have been able to understand that I was referring to the fact that Baptists and most Pentecostals only baptize those who can make their own confession of faith (i.e. not babies).

Q: ………Benny Hinn?

A: I shouldn’t have even brought him up.

Q: Don’t all protestants require a confession of faith along the lines: “I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior” ?

A: I don’t call this a Protestant Doctrine. Maybe you should read up on this because obviously you’re lacking knowledge in this area. The point of my post wasn’t to discuss every doctrine of every denomination. I was merely discussing the generally accepted doctrines of what I consider the main-line denominations. What are mainline denominations? You can figure it out.

Q: Doesn’t Christ just demand obedience?

A: Christ demands obedience “follow me” and faith “believe in me”. Besides, explain how you could obey him all you life without believing in him?

Q: What’s the Authority on Reformed Theology?

A: The Bible. see Romans 8:28-30 and John 3:16 among others.

Q: Isn’t Protestantism about what you believe, not what your church believes?

A: No, we have authority as well, it‘s called the Bible. But we are also not mindless robots. We can make moral decisions that the Bible doesn’t deal with.

Q: The concept of picking one theology over another is something I don’t understand as a Catholic.

A: Wow, you should understand. Augustine’s theology certainly is different than Aquinas’ which is certainly different compared to Bonaventure’s.

Text was too long, continued in next thread

 

[Andyman1517]

Text continued

Q: Is it possible to take the Glory away from God?
A: No, I should have been more clear. What I should have said is that in modern times we don’t glorify God enough.

Q: Is there such a thing as dissent in the catholic church?

A: You better believe it.

Finally, I’ll address your last statement

“Andy, you are reaching for something more than you have. That’s why you’re here”

Nope. I’ve always enjoyed religious debate. It strengthens my faith. You, however, are very , repeat VERY misinformed. I think this is why you clicked onto my thread. Please, I encourage you to look into your faith. Examine it. Your pedantic arguments show that you’re insecure and that your faith cannot stand up to true scrutiny.

I’m looking forward to hearing back from you.

In Christ,

Andy

 

[kevinfraser]

You chose protestantism over Catholicism. You feel upset that Catholics presume your involvement with certain activities you don’t like. You don’t quantify nor qualify: “Many” you accuse.

Some of these people whose activities you dislike call themselves Protestant. You don’t want to be tarred with the same brush.

Maybe that risk of guilt by association is part of being a Protestant. It sure is part of being a Catholic.

If you believe in the risen body of Christ, you are Christian. It doesn’t matter what anyone calls your denomination or thinks of any of its supposed activities if you reject the Magisterial authority of Rome. That rejection makes you Protestant. Doesn’t matter what fraction of it you belong to. Hey, we’re stuck with the effects of the Protestant Reformation, too.

To avoid this guilt by association, maybe you should include your denomination in your signature line. “Here’s how I keep my name separate from others who call themselves protestants.” Then everyone will know exactly what to call your Non-Catholic Christian denomination.

Implying that I’m so stupid that I just don’t understand why we are Catholics and not catholics is nothing but a slap in the face.

You are a protestant. I am a Catholic. You can play with capitalization all you want, but that can’t change your intent.

Protestants reject papal authority in matter of faith and morals. That’s the purpose of Protestantism. Catholics are obedient to Rome’s authority. There is no dissent tolerated. Hans Kung didn’t and won’t become sin without sin and die on a cross to redeem me, so I’ll stick with Jesus’ Apostolic authority, thank you very much.

Anyone who isn’t obedient to Rome in all matters of faith and morals is no Catholic, no matter what.

You think I’m angry? Of course I am. I’ve tried to raise three kids as good Catholics for 16 years and every time I turn around, somebody like you is trying to tell them I’m all wet, and protestantism is an easier choice. Given some of the other social accomplishments of Protestantism, I’m not big on it, tongues or no.

 

[bob]

There are tens of thousands of Protestants of every shade of grey. So it is very easy for Catholics, when attacking a Protestant, will not get it 100% right.

There will be a bunch of Protestants who will say , “Hey, we are not like that!”

So if we tar a Protestant, we have got tens of thousands of excuses not to get it right.

However, there is only one Catholic Church, so when a Protestant attacks it erroneously, there is no excuse for not knowing what Catholics stand for.

I am getting it right?

 

[Ellen]

boppysbud:

Andyman, of course you are correct in that Protestant Christians hold a wide range of views.

But the sad fact is that those who beleive in the “sinners prayer” for “gettin saved”, that the Bible is literal, in adult baptism by immersion only are the loudest group of Protestants, and the ones who are most vocal in condemning Catholics here, even though they often don’t have a clue as to what Catholics really beleive and so.

Perhaps it would help if Main-Line Protestants spoke up a little more, instead of allowing their voices to be drowned out by the always loud fundamentalist cacaphony.

After all, Catholics and main-line Protestants have more in common with each other, than we have with fundy “Christians”.

I agree. On Christian families bb I frequent, when the fundamentalists start in w/ the anti-infant baptism, once saved always saved, sola scriptura, sola fide stuff, only the Catholics speak up to defend the positions. I always make it a point to state that many protestant denominations baptize infants, believe you can lose your salvation, etc. However, none of the protestants from those denoms (lutheran, episcopalian, methodist, etc.), ever say anything. I know they are there, they post about other stuff all the time. Why don’t they speak up? Are they afraid of having anything in common w/ Catholics? It gives the secular world (as well as Catholics) the impression that to be a protestant Christian means to be a fundamentalist.

 

[Andyman1517]

Gee-whiz Kev,

Everyone here is trying to have a decent conversation about Protestant/Catholic differences and you have to go on a personal rampage The intent of my posts weren’t to make you mad. (This kind of reaction is of one who is obviously insecure about there beliefs, but believe what you will.) I’m glad you’re an informed catholic Christian who can differentiate between different religious sects. That means this thread wasn’t for you. Read some of the other posts here, many of the individuals do have misconceptions about other faiths, not to mention their own catholic faith. Fortunately, you say you don’t have this problem. Good for you. J

I’m not asking you or anyone else to convert, I am, however, asking you to think before you criticize. This was the real point of my previous posts, and something you entirely missed. Also, when I chose to leave the catholic faith a few years ago, it certainly wasn’t because “it’s an easier choice”. Quite to the contrary, I was faced with rebuke from both family and friends. Being a Christian requires no less dedication from a catholic than it does from a protestant. Take off your spectacles.

I don’t think I’m going to stoop to your level to and make fun of your religion though. This seems like something that you’re a pro at. You think I’m angry? No, Kevin, not at all. We all try to live our lives in accordance with some sort of principle, and I’m happy you are raising your children to have these principles. In this day and age, ethics are things that seem to have gone the way of the dodo. Given some of the theological, and intellectual accomplishments of Catholicism, I’m not big on it, Brown Scapular or not.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I understand where you’re coming from, but I think those who have suggested looking at the mission of Catholic Answers come closest to the reason that catholic.com strikes you as misrepresenting Protestantism. CA is trying to equip people to defend their faith against the most common arguments that are going to be made against it. I’ve never had a mainline Protestant care to disagree with me. That’s not pointing a finger because the Catholic Church is just as bad. We’re not out trying to make converts. But it all comes down to the fact that being prepared most often means being ready to answer the “fringe.” Apart from the failure to distinguish between sola and solo scriptura, my experience has been that in treating Protestantism, CA normally strives for accuracy by quoting actual arguments. So if a broad brush is used it is usually prefaced with, “many Protestants believe…” As for the posts on the forum…well, all those who are well-enough informed to notice misrepresentation need to try to correct it. It’s not charitable to let people continue in falsehood if we can correct them.

By the way, I’m looking forward to my senior thesis on the interaction among Catholic, Reformed, and Anabaptist thought in Reformation Zurich. Since, like you said, denominations often get misrepresented, I like to get it from the horse’s mouth.

 

[Contarini]

There’s a very simple solution to all of this–don’t use the word “Protestantism” except in those rare cases when you really are talking about Protestantism as a whole. Why is it so much trouble to be accurate when speaking of the most cherished beliefs of your separated brothers and sisters? If it really is so much trouble, just say “some Protestants” or “many Protestants.” Or you can use a vague term like “fundamentalists” or “free church Protestants” (those are not the same thing, I hasten to add–there are many Baptists and other free church Protestants who are not fundamentalists).

Catholicism is very complicated too, just in different ways. It takes trouble to be fair about other Christians. But it’s worth it.

One good example of unfair generalization is the following statement made on this thread, about two problems that allegedly afflict all Protestants:

:First, is the denial of the real Presence of The Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. Jesus affirmed this directly 6-7-8 times as does St Paul. Jesus then asked the apostles if they would leave him also since this was a “hard” saying. Therefore Jesus himself refuted the objections.:

Many Protestants do believe in the real Presence. For Lutherans this is one of the central doctrines, and most Anglicans believe it as well. Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. often hold a purely symbolic view, but historically their traditional view is more of a “spiritual presence,” which admittedly may not count as “real Presence” in your book.

: Second is divorce, the destroyer of millions of lives and souls. :

And there again, you’re generalizing, though with a bit more justification. Many fundamentalists and some other conservative Protestants (conservative Mennonites and Amish, for instance) also do not recognize second marriages as valid–indeed, since these churches don’t allow annulments, they are considerably stricter than Catholics (one New Order Amish guy put it to me this way–if two people engage in a public marriage ceremony, then they clearly intended to get married, and their marriage is indissoluble).

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[flameburns623]

Annunciata:

Andy,
When we were babies in the Baptist Church we were ‘dedicated’
a prayer ceremony as I recall from my younger brother’s.
Then at 11 or 12 we were baptized and I remember being asked, “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Personal Savior”. So from the above are you saying it wasn’t really a baptism as Christ taught? One that took away our sins? Maybe this is why I had to have a ‘conditional baptism’ when I became a Catholic? BTW, nice thread!

Annunciata

Baptists baptize in the Trinitarian formula-“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. While I would not disallow that a local congregation or an individual preacher might have ommitted that formula, it would be a deviation from practice. One is baptised ‘conditionally’ into the Roman Catholic or–presumably, at least–into the Eastern Orthodox churches on the outside chance that the Trinitarian formula was ommitted, the church performing the original baptism was heretical in it’s doctrine of the Trinity, or because there were some other significant issue regarding the baptism. In general, however, one’s baptism into most Protestant churches would likely be deemed valid. If one ‘insisted’ for some reason that one did not wish to be re-baptised, I think the Catholic Church would investigate the details of the baptism and–if all issues were found to be satisfactorily answered–one’s baptism would be accepted. I don’t think this happens very often though.

However–baptism for Baptists is an active of obedience following salvation, not a sacrament whereby the ‘grace’ of salvation is communicated. One is typically asked to ‘make a profession of faith’ to signify that one believes that one has received salvation–the proverbial “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior”. What most folks don’t realize is that the Baptists churches generally are heavily influenced by Calvinism, so that one is actually only acknowledging by the aforesaid profession what God has done for the individual. One is not ‘being saved’ by that profession of faith. In fact, Baptists tend NOT to promptly follow up one’s profession of faith by baptising the person–they often wait several days, weeks, or even months before doing so. Unlike the ‘Campbellite’ churches (Churches of Christ) for whom baptismal regeneration is a doctrinal issue: they baptise converts promptly, usually immediately following the initial profession of faith.

 

[chrisg93]

Contarini,
One good example of unfair generalization is the following statement made on this thread, about two problems that allegedly afflict all Protestants:

Thanks for your reply above but you have broken your own rule of accuracy and fairness. I did not know that the Lutherens believed in the Real Presence. I unknowingly put them into the wrong catagory which you ascribe to me as “unfair generalization”. My mistake is understandable since there are 8,000 Christian denominations in the US. Your reference to “symbolic meaning” only is exactly what I was talking about.

You are also less than candid about divorce. I am guessing that that 99% of non-Catholic Christian demoninations allow divorce. Remarriage is a secondary issue. A denomination cannot be stricter theologically than the Catholic Church without being punitive (and therefore wrong).

I don’t mean to nit-pic, but as you said - it is important. I know that you intention was sincere. Please remember me as your brother in Christ.

 

[Annunciata]

flameburns623:

Baptists baptize in the Trinitarian formula-“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. While I would not disallow that a local congregation or an individual preacher might have ommitted that formula, it would be a deviation from practice. One is baptised ‘conditionally’ into the Roman Catholic or–presumably, at least–into the Eastern Orthodox churches on the outside chance that the Trinitarian formula was ommitted,
.

Interesting, as I recall, I was ‘dunked’/immersed, In the Name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost but the priest who converted me said to be on the safe side he would do it ‘conditionally’…My Catholic Baptism was much more meaningful to me… but I really think the Baptist one was a valid Baptism. Annunciata

 

[Contarini]

:Thanks for your reply above but you have broken your own rule of accuracy and fairness.:

No, I didn’t.

: I did not know that the Lutherens believed in the Real Presence. I unknowingly put them into the wrong catagory which you ascribe to me as “unfair generalization”.:

It was an unfair generalization.

: My mistake is understandable since there are 8,000 Christian denominations in the US.:

No, that’s no excuse. The Lutherans are one of the major Protestant traditions. They are not one of “8,000 denominations,” which obviously includes every little house church. If you don’t know what the major Protestant traditions (Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Wesleyan, Anabaptist, Baptist, Pentecostal for starters) think about something, then you shouldn’t make claims about what Protestants believe on that particular subject. No one asked you to generalize about Protestants. But if you choose to do so, you are morally obligated to know what you are talking about.

:You are also less than candid about divorce.:

What’s also? You admit that you were wrong about the Lutherans. How was I less than candid in pointing out your error? And there’s nothing not “candid” about what I said.

: I am guessing that that 99% of non-Catholic Christian demoninations allow divorce.:

You are guessing. You don’t know, and you haven’t even articulated the standard by which you are judging this. I don’t know whether your guess is correct either, which is why I did not make any claim of the sort. I said that many fundamentalists and other conservative Protestants do not allow any form of remarriage after divorce. I don’t know what percentage of the total that represents. I’d guess that in numbers of people it might be 1% or it might be a little more, but probably not too much more. In numbers of denominations, if you are using the same definition of “denomination” that gives you the 8,000 figure, it’s probably a much higher percentage, because the ultra-conservative Protestants who oppose divorce are also in many cases the most likely to split into tiny groups (indeed, opposition to divorce is one of the reasons Protestant groups split away).

: Remarriage is a secondary issue.:

No, it’s not. It’s the central issue. The Catholic Church recognizes that a civil divorce–with no intention to remarry–may be sometimes necessary, doesn’t it? Not to speak of the fact that the consent of both parties is not necessary for a divorce, so that many people find themselves divorced not by their own choice. If remarriage was categorically forbidden, most people would not get divorced except when absolutely necessary to protect themselves or their children from abuse.

: A denomination cannot be stricter theologically than the Catholic Church without being punitive (and therefore wrong).:

But that wasn’t the question. The point is that a number (a small number, but not totally insignificant) of conservative Protestant groups are stricter than the Catholic Church, making your initial claim a lie. Whether they are right or not was not the point. Of course you think the Catholic Church is right, and I applaud you for that. But that’s no excuse for telling falsehoods about other Christians.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[bob]

Contarini:

…Or you can use a vague term like “fundamentalists” or “free church Protestants” (those are not the same thing, I hasten to add–there are many Baptists and other free church Protestants who are not fundamentalists)…

Uh…Uh.

I have met some fundamentalists - “Born Again Christians”, I believe they call themselves. Non-denominational, they claim.

Not only do they condemn the Catholic church but every other organised Christian denomination as well.

Protestant is a fair generalisation because it is from them that all the other splinter groups emerged.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

:
No, it’s not. It’s the central issue. The Catholic Church recognizes that a civil divorce–with no intention to remarry–may be sometimes necessary, doesn’t it? Not to speak of the fact that the consent of both parties is not necessary for a divorce, so that many people find themselves divorced not by their own choice. If remarriage was categorically forbidden, most people would not get divorced except when absolutely necessary to protect themselves or their children from abuse.

In the Catholic Church remarriage after a VALID marriage is categorically forbidden. Civil divorce does not sever the spiritual bond forged by God. It is permanent until death.

The Church does recognize that there are sometimes reasons why a validly married couple must live apart, but again, a civil divorce means that the couple is no longer LEGALLY married. The spiritual union forged by God remains therefore neither person may remarry unless the former spouse dies.

I know that seems unfair in the eyes of the world, particularaly when there was abuse or adultery involved, but in the eyes of God marraige is permenant.

Isaiah 55:8
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Contarini]

Bob,

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that it’s fair to use the generalization “Protestant” when you mean “fundamentalist” because fundamentalists are offshoots of the older forms of Protestantism? By that logic, it’s fair to call Protestants Catholics because Protestants came out of Catholicism. An offshoot is just that–something that has “shot off” and is no longer part of the parent body. We use the word “Protestant” for all the churches that ultimately derive from the Reformation, and I’m fine with that. But it is both unjust and silly to speak as if fundamentalist Baptists are somehow the same sort of thing as Lutherans. In many ways (particularly having to do with sacramental theology), Lutherans are closer to Catholicism than to the Baptist brand of Protestantism. (And in other ways, the reverse is true–so counter-examples you can come up with are irrelevant.) But whether that’s so or not, when you say “Protestant” you are necessarily referring to Lutherans and Reformed (and Anglicans, insofar as they reflect the theology of the 16th-century English Reformers–many Anglicans, including myself, have abandoned most of that theology while remaining institutionally Protestant, but that’s another story). These are the original Protestants. It’s a perversion of language to redefine the word to mean Baptists and Pentecostals to the exclusion of traditional Protestantism.

Nancy, nothing you said was disagreeing with what I said. My original point was that some Protestants are stricter than Catholicism, inasmuch as they have a broader definition of what is a “valid marriage” than that currently in vogue among Catholics (at least in the U.S.). Hence, these conservative Protestants would not allow for an annullment, except maybe in extreme circumstances. I freely admit that these are a small minority of Protestants. But they exist–that’s the tradition I grew up with. My father alienated his (divorced and remarried, and not very religious, though nominally Methodist) mother by telling her that she was “living in adultery.” (My father had been converted in the evangelical mission run by my mother’s parents.)

This is one of the reasons why I find secular and mainline criticisms of Catholicism so odd–growing up, I thought Catholics were terribly lax and tolerated all sorts of immorality (drinking, for instance). It’s one of the reasons I respect Catholicism and am very drawn toward it–having grown up in ultra-strict Protestantism and now living among mainliners, Catholicism seems very moderate and balanced!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Contarini:

This is one of the reasons why I find secular and mainline criticisms of Catholicism so odd–growing up, I thought Catholics were terribly lax and tolerated all sorts of immorality (drinking, for instance). It’s one of the reasons I respect Catholicism and am very drawn toward it–having grown up in ultra-strict Protestantism and now living among mainliners, Catholicism seems very moderate and balanced!

Well, yer certainly welcome to join us! C’mon home to Rome!!!

In Christ,
Nancy