Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[PJM]

=StTommyMore;7766044]Not exactly, You cannot be a heretic if you are ignorant of the heresy:

It is not enough to simply hold to a heretical belief. You have to know the teaching of the Church and obstinately refuse to submit to her.

CORRECT!

Code of Canon Law:
**
Can. 751 **Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am disappointed at the title of this forum. Protestants are not a different “religion” from Catholics. That’s a misuse of the term “religion.” Islam is a different religion from Christianity, but Protestants are part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. This is acknowledged by most RC scholars.
Tom

You will probably be disappointed by my perspective. I am going to provide you a descriptive accurate analysis of what I believe Protestantism to be. I did not come up with this by myself.

Hillaire Beloc states Protestanism is a heresy.
Protestanism originated in Europe by White Europeans
Protestanism is a new religion, denying the Authority of the Church, professing extrinsic justification, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and in the case of the Anglicans-the Queen is head of the Church. Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession and are schismatic.

I define Protestanism as a form of thought. Protestanism is a new religion started by white europeans professing new and novel ideas never before taught that is contrary to the teachings of The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

I realize that you don’t like it and I don’t like it either. I know that there are Catholic-Anglican dialogues, Lutherans/Methodists have agreed with the OHCAC on some articles of Justification, there are dialgues of the OHCAC with Reformed, Baptist and Evangelicals. There is agreed understanding of Baptism, Mary and other issues of concern. The OHCAC has professed agreement to unite with Eastern Orthodoxy, when and where who knows.

You believe that Protestants are not different. I believe they are. You are sad. I am sad.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your reply is a non sequitur. It is a semantic issue about the meaning of the term religion.

I am so pleased that you brought up the semantic difference. As you know words are how we communicate. You must be familiar with Alfred Korzybski, author of Science and Sanity and the Manhood of humanity, the originator of General Semantics. His basic tenet as it regards the Universe and our perception of stuff is this…“the map is not the territory”. In other words what is in your head is a representation of what is out there.

The Protestant map and the Catholic Map are different. I believe that Protestant thought is a new religion, originating with white Europeans denying the authority of the Church, professing sola fide, sola scriptura and claiming extrinsic justification. No religion provided any teaching like this before and therefore it is a new religion. This new religion claims Christ as did Nestorius, Pelagius although imperfectly.

 

[CopticChristian]

Protestants are part of the same religion in that they believe in Christ. But you try telling some of them they’re part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”. You’ll find a lot of them balk at the word, “catholic”, partly because they don’t know what the term means (“universal”) and a lot of them are suspicious and antagonistic to the Catholic Church and Catholics.

They may be part of the same religion, but so are Shi’ite and Sunni Moslems, and they kill each other on a regular basis.

Protestants are not part of the Catholic Church, with all due respect.

Muslims like Protestants have no central authority and it is interesting that you bring up Shiite and Suni. The Shia believe in succesion through the family of mohammed and the Suni are kind of like Protestant congregationalists believing in election of leadership. This is what happens with man made religions.

 

[CopticChristian]

Protestants are CHRISTIANS.

Obviously there are differences between Protestants and Catholics. There are also big differences between an Episcopalian and a Pentecostal, but both are Christians.

Now for simple organization, I’m not the saying the forum section should be renamed, but we cannot compare Protestants to Muslims or Jews, who are not Christians.

Now here is a question to the Catholics:

If someone asks you if you are Christian, what do you say?

• Yes
  – No, I’m Catholic
• Yes, Catholic

Just curious.

You may want to visit the thread Catholic or Christian

 

[CopticChristian]

Two people can be “Christian”, and yet have different “faiths and practices”, that is, different “religions”.

Christianity itself is, using this definition of “religion”, both one religion and many different religions.

Prior to 1600 one could be Christian and the world would know that is Catholic. After 1600 those that departed from the Body of Christ, The Church and formed a new religion, took on the name Christian and in essence started a new religion.

Christianity itself using this definition a diverse group of individuals some self proclaimed and other not, that there is one religion we can be sure that as a result of reason and supposed autonomy there can be many.

 

[CopticChristian]

May be off topic, but isn’t saying you are non-denominational an oxymoron?? To say you do not hold the beliefs of any other church or denomination. Then what do you believe?? I have a daughter that left the Catholic church for a non-denominational church. Yet what the claim to believe is the same as some of the other protestant churchs around. Really makes no sense to me at all.
Maybe I should have posted this in another place, but protestants really are a different religion because they do not hold to all of the teachings from Christ. In my daughter’s case, she wanted to pick & choose what to follow. She wanted something more “fun”. Even if “fun” means rejecting some of the very things Christ left.

I encounter the non-denoms often. I usally ask to see their statement of Faith and if you read it you will see either Calvinism, Armeniainism or in the case of Calvary Chapel a blend. I usually see Bible Alone, Faith Alone and then when I point these out as Protestant beliefs enter the following discussion:

You profess to be non-denominational. I profess you are a Protestant denomination that chooses not to be called a denomination and in fact your denonimation is “non”. Changing the name does not change the nature of that which you name. Huh?

A man and woman are sexual beings, agreed. Yup.

A man can be called a non-woman however that does not change what a man is by calling him other than a man, well yeah. Well then your denomination as it is called “non” is Protestant even though in naming it as non-denominational is denominational you choose not to call it by a denomination and therefore does not dismiss your beliefs from being Protestant.

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s kind of my point. Catholics and Protestants may call each other heretics, but generally they don’t call each other pagans, because they’re part of the same religion, Christianity. If we say Catholicism and Protestantism are different religions, that’s true in a sense, but also not because we acknowledge that both are Christian, so there’s a semantic clarity problem in calling them different religions. “Separated brethren” is a good term. That nails what Catholics and Protestants are to each other: Christian brethren who are separated by their different church traditions. The differences are deeper than mere denominations, but not nearly so deep as actual different religions.

We accept these separated brethren by acknowledging their trinitarian baptism.

The difficulty with Protestant thought is that in formulating this man made religion it is exclusive to anyone but themselves. There is no concept of separated brethren as I see in in Protestant thought.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hmm, no, I wouldn’t say all denominations are equal; or at least, some are more equal than others. Just as with religions, some have more of the truth than others. I think the one I belong to (Assemblies of God) has more than most, else I wouldn’t be there. It’s by no means the only one I find doctrinally acceptable but there are a good many I don’t find acceptable; very liberal churches for example, since I’m theologically on the conservative side.

Though I am familiar with Catholic teaching, and I have a copy of the Catholic Catechism beside me now, I am not convinced the CC is more authentically what Christ had in mind than my AG church, else I’d join it. Indeed, I think rather the opposite is true, though I still think it possible to be both Catholic and a good Christian. What then, according your understanding of the Catholic teaching on the matter, do you make of the state of my salvation?

(And btw, I’m a JRRT fan too. )

If you have a catechism read it. If you have studied the roots of the Assemblies of God, I belive in the holiness movement, Methodism and subsequently Anglicanism then you know the history of the Anglican schism. If you believe that there is a satisfactory deposit of Faith transmitted no one will change your mind.

To be a good Catholic and good Christian the question is who is going to define that to your satisfaction. A good Christian has been baptized, been regenerated, seeks grace through the sacraments and with the grace of God does work pleasing to his creator, following the moral law. That is what The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches.

When it comes to asking someone to render an opinion on your salvation, only you can have some reasonable understanding of that and what others think may be of little value and adds nothing, in my opinion to this forum. Keep reading the Catechism

 

[CopticChristian]

I imagine the consensus will be that you will be in purgatory for a loooong time

I’m of the same opinion. I’ve always perceived a disconnect between what attending a 1st century church service would be like v. attending a Catholic Mass inside a giant stone cathedral. It seems a first century church-goer would find the typical AoG service more familiar, with all the speaking in tongues and what-not.

There is no way to know what the first century church was like. We know of Corinth. I am unimpressed with what is called speaking in tongue today, Echolalia has been disproved by linguists as being anything but jibberish and nonsensical. I believe this. This is my opinion.

In consideration that The Church developed from a baby to an adult, the elements of the mass were there and developed to what we have now.

You used to watch TV on a black and white, things were filmed with one camera, Shakespeare was performed in the round…things change and somehow stay the same.

 

[CopticChristian]

Protestantism is not a religion but a heresy within Christianity. Protestants are hereitcs because they have fallen away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church due to the invention of new, and contradictory doctrines. While Protestants came from the Catholic Church they will not be part of it until they return to it.

Unlike the Orthodox and the Anglicans that will only happen one by one. The Orthodox and Catholic are dialoging. The Anglicans have to talk to the queen about either relinquishing power over the church or conversion to Catholocism.

 

[CopticChristian]

Church Catholic =/= Catholic Church. Church Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church is a denomination. I went to a Church of England cathedral for a while and the term “catholic” was always used, but not to mean denomination. I have also done some work for a Coptic archbishop who was very knowledgeable about this difference (I will note here the relation between the Coptic and RC churches).

Words are defined by usage. I object and ask you and others not to attach the notion of denomination to the Catholic Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

I actually found this thread rather interesting.

Let’s backtrack.

So the administrators of this forum decided to have a section or sections devoted to those of us who are “Not Catholic”. Should I take offense at this? Me thinks not.

So the next decision would be how many sections do you create. Well you “could” have “Non-Catholic Christians” and “Non-Christian”. But as one poster (Zooey) said aptly said who decides what this boundary is? What about organizations like Mormon or JW? Maybe you need a third category called “Debatably Christian”.

But you -still- have the boundary problem, except you now have two boundaries to worry about.

So the decision to have just one section is understandable and upon reflection one that I agree with. If you are not Catholic, this is your area. If you then study Catholicism you know the official teaching of the church is we are Christians, just separated…so of an inferior status to the true church. OK. But since many of us believe that y’all are Christians but of an inferior status, the tit-for-tat is even (I don’t think God intrinsically puts an “inferior status” sign on church organizations…that having been said I find the moral stats of “Liberal Protestant” to be (tactfully) troubling).

Anyway, since there is a defensible (and one I agree with) decision to have one area, the final decision is “what do you call it?”. Well “Non-Catholic” is a no brainer.

So finally we are down to the word “religion”. Is there a better word or phrase to use in place of religion? Maybe…but I for one am hard pressed to figure out what it might be. So religion works in lack of any better phrase.

So for me anyway to take offense at the title of this forum really seems to be in the category of “straining at gnats”.

Now this all having been said, there is a lot of rhetoric in this thread that is kinda “over-the-top” (why I don’t hang out here like I used to) but that is a separate issue.

Protestanim to me is kinda like this.

The smith family has a son. The smith family has moral standards and beliefs and ways of doing things that have been passed down for generations. This son leaves home and denies that he ever was part of that family and in fact starts a family of his own. He changes the name to Smythe and claims some but not all of the standards and beliefs and ways of doing things that have passed down for generations. This son claims that he and all that follow have what the original smith family had however because they were in error changed his name to Smythe-Calvin-Luther.

This son by common ancestory is part of the family, Adam. This son chose to change his name, adopt some of the beliefs and claim his family the new and correct family.

 

[CopticChristian]

I understand. I’ll have to research that and get back to you – kinda pressed for time right now.

Btw, if I were within the CC, I’d probably wind up like Hans Küng, still a priest, but stripped of his authority to teach Catholic theology. Catholic or not, he remains one of my favorite Christian writers.

spend some time with John Paul II

 

[CopticChristian]

Sure, but which is the one that Christ founded? Given that it was hundreds of years before the Bishop of Rome was anything more than “first among equals”, (it was Leo I who first successfully asserted the claim to papal authority, and that worked because the barbarians were literally at the gates) it looks like a human evolution rather than something divinely instituted. If apostolic succession is necessary, it looks to me like the Eastern Orthodox claim is at least as valid as the Roman one, and I think their doctrine is better. From a Protestant perspective, being in the Church Christ founded is not being in any particular organization, but simply being one of his followers. If you follow Him, you are in His Church, which is universal and invisible to human eyes (though highly visible and powerful in the spiritual realm).

You may want to read a book called “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” authored by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess. Scott is my daughters Godfather. You can see him on YouTube, just enter his name. He used to be Protestant.

Read this book and then comeback and see if what you say here you still believe.

 

[CopticChristian]

I would have to agree with the original poster. Protestant Christians are not a different religion from Catholic Christians or Orthodox Christians, just a different denomination.

From my point of view, all of the above are the same religion, Christian.

Seeker

Then you need to read all the posts, Catholic is not a denomination, Protestants are a different religion. I like to be descriptive.

Protestant thought is a new religion originating with white europeans including Knox, Zwingli, both Catholic Priests, Luther, a Catholic Augustinian monk, and John Calvin a Catholic lawyer whose father was excommunicated for embezzelement, teaching novel and new ideas including extrinsic justification, denying the authority of the Church, teaching faith alone and the bible alone. Since inception it has evolved into numerous and sundry denominations the anticipation of which may not have been contemplated.

That is my definition.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not aware of any that I would oppose.

In at least one issue that is very important to me personally, what has been “revealed” to the Orthodox is apparently quite a bit different than the revelation to Rome. Orthodoxy matches what I believe on that issue. The CC discipline is much different, and would serve as a great barrier to me ever converting.

Marianism - I have no problem with it. I would likely not engage in any of those practices early in conversion to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. I’m open to the possibility of being assimilated in time. I don’t think adherence to it is required in either church, is it?

Real Presence - I believe that Jesus is really present in the bread and wine. I’m not flatly opposed to the idea of transubstantiation, I just find it unnecessary to faith in Christ, so Orthodoxy is more in line with my thinking. I’m satisfied with regarding the exact nature of His presence as a mystery.

Confession would be new and strange for me. I don’t intellectually see the need for confession to anyone but Jesus Himself. But I think I could accept it if I decided to convert.

I kind of look at the Eastern Orthodox as a snapshot in time. While the Western Church matured in unity, Orthodoxy stayed as it was in disunity. In other words what you see in Orthodoxy is what the Church probably looked like in the year 1000. If you have never been to an Eastern Catholic Church or Orthodox Church please go.

You will have to put up with all those funny hats and gowns and long beards. I am OK with that. They have a devotion to Mary, they believe in Transsubstantiation but they do not describe it that way, the West does, they go with Mystery.

Confession may be to a priest or spiritual advisor and penance may include excommunication.

Hey, if you like Orthodoxy go for it and hopefully in our lifetime we will see the West and East unite and you’ll be part of the One Holy Catholic Church either way.

 

[CopticChristian]

Both these responses are ridiculous. I phrased my entire response as a contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It appears that neither of you view Orthodoxy as a viable choice? They have the same apostolic succession as the CC. You think they are wrong?

As for how am I to know? God has written His laws on my heart. I have His Holy Spirit to guide me in making these decisions.

If the choice is Orthodoxy or Protestant the obvious choice is Orthodoxy
If the Choice is Orhtodoxy or Catholic, I believe Catholic

Orthodoxy is cultural and not quite like most Catholic Churches and most Protestant churches.

Orthodoxy and Cathlolic may unite so if you chose Orthodoxy well then…

 

[CopticChristian]

So let me see if I can cut to the chase:

As far as the site architects are concerned, Protestants are Muslims are Hindus are Parsees are Wiccans, in terms of relevance for and concern to Catholic Christendom. Am I near it?

Muslims deny the divinity of Christ and were never part of the OHCC
Hindus are polytheists and have never been part of the OHCC
Pharisees are Jews, like Paul, who became a leader in the OHCC
Wiccans are witches

Relevance. Muslims need Christ, Hindus need Christ, Pharisees found Christ, Protestants find Christ but reject his teachings.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve read and enjoyed reading all 14 pages, and I must say I’m so glad I was born Catholic.

There’s one thing that I can definately understand about Protestantism which is that they protested against the sale of indulgences. This is what Jesus I think would have probably agreed with as well. You simply just can’t buy your ticket to heaven. That was just wrong back then.

edit: oh and yeah you Protestants are non-catholics of course so the forum title is correct imo. We’re all Christians but you guys ain’t Catholics; if you were you’d live with all of our sacraments and what comes with it

You can protest about lots of stuff and that is OK. It was not protest alone that caused the problem, they left and started a new religion. If indeed the only thing was indulgences we would see a Pope, a Church, and all the elements of the Church without indulgences as a doctrine.