Protestants DENY Tradition?

[Jubilarian]

Not speaking for Father K, but I think you hit on something, in calling it “the vernacular”. Webster’s defines vernacular: of, relating to, or using the language of ordinary speech rather than formal writing. : of or relating to the common style of a particular time, place, or group.

The term protestant is a vernacular, not a formal name. The definition you give from Wikipedia fits that definition just fine. The term is, indeed, used to refer to western Christian communions not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Formally, however, the term has little meaning, as even the “principles of the Reformation” varies from communion to communion, including how we use Tradition.

Jon

The definition I posted is not just found on Wikipedia, its found all over the Internet dictionaries, encyclopedias and even professed Protestant websites. Again, I don’t dismiss the fact that other people chose not to accept this.

Remember, I used the word “vernacular”. However, most definitions, including the one I posted that pops up with a search of the word, does not make a clarification by saying " it is not the formal usage". Most words, when defined by decent sources will say in a footnote, " this is not the formal usage of the word".

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t dismiss the fact that other people chose not to accept this.

Whats getting tiresome is your insistence that the word “Protestant” only meets the definitions you lay out.

One of these is not like the other…

 

[Jubilarian]

One of these is not like the other…

Only in your mind. Insisting that one is not Protestant when huge numbers of sources state the opposite speaks for itself. And, for the hundredth time, you can adopt the definition you want, but don’t cry about the fact that a word has the meaning I said it has.

 

[KjetilK]

Only in your mind. Insisting that one is not Protestant when huge numbers of sources state the opposite speaks for itself. And, for the hundredth time, you can adopt the definition you want, but don’t cry about the fact that a word has the meaning I said it has.

The word protestant means one who protests a government ban on his religious practice. I do not do that at the moment.

And I do not protest against the Roman Catholic Church either, byw. I am part of the Church if Norway, founded over 1000 years ago.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which is what? That some of those who do not call themselves Protestant (such as myself and many, many European Lutherans) should be forced to do so because you want to make some ignorant, rhetorical point?

I was hoping for better when I saw that a Lutheran pastor had joined the forum.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yet, you still insist that I am a Protestant. I am not protesting a governmental ban on my religious practice.

Which is precisely what is at issue. You keep begging the question. I do not agree with your americanised usage of that word, and I do not fit the label. I do not fit the historical label, since there are now governmental edicts for me to protest against at the moment. And I do not fit the overly general label that you use, since it puts me in the company of people who have always been regarded as something other than Lutherans.

Historically, Lutheranism IS Protestant. But Anabaptism and Pentacostalism isn’t. But since this is NOT the way most people use Protestant, I do not use it.

The central point of Lutheranism is that Lutheranism is Catholic, that God saves us through word and sacrament, and that there is NO Church without the administration of the Eucharist. But for most people now, a ‘Protestant’ means a non-Catholic who do not care much about the Eucharist and who, at most, sees is as symbolic. To use the label would be inaccurate and misleading.

I have more in common with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians than I do with Pentecostals and Baptists.

So? Does that make me wrong? Please learn the difference between an argument, a claim, and a non sequitur.

You don’t see the Pope as head of the universal Church, but you see yourself as Catholic.
You don’t acknowledge seven sacraments instituted by Christ, but you see yourself as Catholic.
You don’t believe in transubstantiation, but you see yourself as Catholic.

See my point?

You have more in common with the Catholic Church than with Baptists or Pentecostals, but that does not make you Catholic nor “non-Protestant”.

Luther was the original Protestant, and you bear his name and teach (some of) his doctrines. You are not a Catholic in the traditional sense of the word used as a proper noun - which began by the middle of the second century at the very latest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

True. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the one from which the others denominated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is starting to get tiresome. Is this clearer: I AM NOT A PROTESTANT!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Jubilarian]

The word protestant means one who protests a government ban on his religious practice. I do not do that at the moment.

And I do not protest against the Roman Catholic Church either, byw. I am part of the Church if Norway, founded over 1000 years ago.

You don’t see the Pope as head of the universal Church, but you see yourself as Catholic.
You don’t acknowledge seven sacraments instituted by Christ, but you see yourself as Catholic.
You don’t believe in transubstantiation, but you see yourself as Catholic.

See my point?

You have more in common with the Catholic Church than with Baptists or Pentecostals, but that does not make you Catholic nor “non-Protestant”.

Luther was the original Protestant, and you bear his name and teach (some of) his doctrines. You are not a Catholic in the traditional sense of the word used as a proper noun - which began by the middle of the second century at the very latest.

Thank God for a voice of reason.

 

[Jubilarian]

The word protestant means one who protests a government ban on his religious practice. I do not do that at the moment.

And I do not protest against the Roman Catholic Church either, byw. I am part of the Church if Norway, founded over 1000 years ago.

According to you and others that choose to define yourself this way. I have repeatedly shown you the generally accepted definition of “Protestant” that dominates internet encyclopedias, dictionaries and the like. And YOU as a Lutheran are included as a Protestant.

At this point, it would be wise for you to avoid taking me on with your assertions and rather start challenging the major publishers of dictionries, encyclopedias…and nearly the entire internet.

Listen, you are entitled to hold onto a definition that you feel narrows you down more accurately, however my original point remains as to what a Protestant is considered to be.

 

[benjohnson]

I was hoping for better when I saw that a Lutheran pastor had joined the forum.

Calling us ‘protestant’ is possibly fine for broad terms of demographics, or even when referring to the events rooted in the Diet of Speyer.

But the obstinate refusal to deal with Lutherans as a church or at least a communion (especially when given ample education) says more about the the speaker.

Unless the poster thinks CAF readers are simpletons and are persuadable by polemics, the wise poster would be to stop referring to Lutherans as mere Protestants. In this particular conversation it obvious such a tactic is a shallow attempt to lump Lutheran in with churches and communions that share almost nothing with them.

Frankly, such a tactic damages Catholic reputations more than Lutheran ones.

 

[Jubilarian]

Calling us ‘protestant’ is possibly fine for broad terms of demographics, or even when referring to the events routed the Diet of Speyer.

But the obstinate refusal to deal with us as a church or at least a communion (especially when given ample education) says more about the the speaker.

Unless the poster thinks CAF readers are simpletons and are persuadable by polemics, the wise poster would be to stop referring to Lutherans as Protestant. In this particular conversation it obvious such a tactic is a shallow attempt to lump Lutheran in with churches and communions that share almost nothing with them.

Frankly, such a tactic damages Catholic reputations more than Lutheran ones.

Should collegiate and academic resources stop referring to Lutherans as Protestants? Your disagreement is not with one or two people, but reference material in general.

If you are prepared to say that Luther didn’t protest the Catholic Church, go ahead, but expect correction.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Calling us ‘protestant’ is possibly fine for broad terms of demographics, or even when referring to the events rooted in the Diet of Speyer.

But the obstinate refusal to deal with Lutherans as a church or at least a communion (especially when given ample education) says more about the the speaker.

Unless the poster thinks CAF readers are simpletons and are persuadable by polemics, the wise poster would be to stop referring to Lutherans as mere Protestants. In this particular conversation it obvious such a tactic is a shallow attempt to lump Lutheran in with churches and communions that share almost nothing with them.

Frankly, such a tactic damages Catholic reputations more than Lutheran ones.

Ben-

We obviously have to recognize that there are differences among the various groups which make up the Protestant branch of Christianity…just as we recognize that there are different autocephalous churches among the Orthodox and different rites with the Catholic Church.

However, I think that the terms “Catholic”, “Protestant”, “Orthodox” and even “Jewish” and “Muslim” have some usefulness as long as we are careful when and how we use them.

There will be times when it is best to distinguish between Sunni and Shia or WELS and ELCA as the context of the discussion requires.

 

[KjetilK]

I was hoping for better when I saw that a Lutheran pastor had joined the forum.

And I was hoping that some people be able to look farther than the US. America is NOT the centre of the universe. And that we Lutherans define ourselves as Catholics shouldn’t be surprising for the people who have actually read our confessions.

You don’t see the Pope as head of the universal Church, but you see yourself as Catholic.

I see the Pope as the Patriarch of the West. Much like the Eastern Orthodox do. This is also pretty much the standard view in Anglicanism and European Lutheranism.

You don’t acknowledge seven sacraments instituted by Christ, but you see yourself as Catholic.

You should never make claims based on ignorance. I believe in seven sacraments – baptism, the Eucharist, confession, confirmation, priestly ordination, marriage, and extreme unction. The first three or four are the most central, but all are sacraments.

You don’t believe in transubstantiation, but you see yourself as Catholic.

Clearly you haven’t been reading my posts on this board. I DO believe in transubstantiation, and have even made the case that transubstantiation IS the teaching of Confessio Augustana. And since you actually replied to that, the conclusion must be that you don’t really read the posts to which you reply.

See my point?

That you base your argument on prejudices and project your (probably americanised) view of Lutheranism over on me, a member of the Church of Norway?

You have more in common with the Catholic Church than with Baptists or Pentecostals, but that does not make you Catholic nor “non-Protestant”.

What about the Orthodox? They believe in seven sacraments – as I do. They do not believe in transubstantiation as it is expressed in Roman Catholic teaching – but I do. And they do not believe the Pope is the head of the universal Church as this is formulated in Roman Catholic teaching. What makes them ‘non-Protestants’? There must be a way to distinguish, and it cannot be ad hoc.

Luther was the original Protestant, and you bear his name and teach (some of) his doctrines. You are not a Catholic in the traditional sense of the word used as a proper noun - which began by the middle of the second century at the very latest.

As I believe I have said maybe a trillion times on this board: Lutherans – whose name was given by Roman Catholics as a way to dismiss them – do not regard Luther as a pope. He is a theologian, but has no formal authority.

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1380315274l/18590599.jpg

And what definition of ‘Protestant’ do you think that book used. It is undoubtedly a historical usage, since it is a historical book. But not all historical labels fit.

Are Democrats all racists?

We obviously have to recognize that there are differences among the various groups which make up the Protestant branch of Christianity…

But THIS is the point. Lutherans are NOT part of the same ‘branch’ as baptists and pentecostals.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, the Lutherans are definitely not Baptist and so on…and their worship coincides with ours.

But likewise are in position to contradict the Church…of which we are all called to be part of this sacred communion.

The Lutheran service I attended did use ‘catholic’ in its creed…but it also had another if I recall, apostolic christian church…or catholic christian church…I think I saw two versions…people and minister lovely people…just wish we were one…which verifies privately to me our apostolic tradition.

 

[Jubilarian]

And what definition of ‘Protestant’ do you think that book used. It is undoubtedly a historical usage, since it is a historical book. But not all historical labels fit.

You can always find nuances within labels, historical or not.

What’s bothersome is this continually act of shock about the usage of the word “Protestant” as if it has no connection to the Reformation or that the definition supplied by credible sources is somehow a big conspiracy .

 

[KjetilK]

You can always find nuances within labels, historical or not.

What’s bothersome is this continually act of shock about the usage of the word “Protestant” as if it has no connection to the Reformation or that the definition supplied by credible sources is somehow a big conspiracy .

The operative word here is Refortmation.

In what meaningful can one claim that Baptists, modern Evangelicals, and Pentecostals were part of the Reformation?

 

[Jubilarian]

The operative word here is Refortmation.

In what meaningful can one claim that Baptists, modern Evangelicals, and Pentecostals were part of the Reformation?

Take your question up with the wide array of sources on the Internet and elsewhere that have less of a hang up with such concepts than you.

I’m comfortable with : a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

Again, I didn’t create the above.

 

[KjetilK]

Take your question up with the wide array of sources on the Internet and elsewhere that have less of a hang up with such concepts than you.

That is just a non-answer.

I’m comfortable with : a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

But Baptist, Presbyterians, modern Evangelicals, and Pentecostals don’t “follow the principles of the Reformation.” They act in direct contradiction to it.

Again, I didn’t create the above.

Yes, you did. And it is just another one of your ever changing ad hoc definitions that you keep changing as you paint yourself into the corner.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I was hoping that some people be able to look farther than the US. America is NOT the centre of the universe. And that we Lutherans define ourselves as Catholics shouldn’t be surprising for the people who have actually read our confessions.

I understand that YOU define yourselves that way.

I see the Pope as the Patriarch of the West. Much like the Eastern Orthodox do. This is also pretty much the standard view in Anglicanism and European Lutheranism.

But not the view of the Catholic Church itself. Surely Catholics ought to have some say in who uses its name? Or can I simply begin to claim Norwegian citizenship for myself without any approval from recognized authorities in Oslo?

You should never make claims based on ignorance. I believe in seven sacraments – baptism, the Eucharist, confession, confirmation, priestly ordination, marriage, and extreme unction. The first three or four are the most central, but all are sacraments.

This was my error, and I do apologize. I was thinking of the Baptists when I wrote that, and yes, I can distinguish between different Protestant groups having been raised in a Methodist home.

Clearly you haven’t been reading my posts on this board. I DO believe in transubstantiation, and have even made the case that transubstantiation IS the teaching of Confessio Augustana. And since you actually replied to that, the conclusion must be that you don’t really read the posts to which you reply.

You stated that position just under two months ago, and while I do try to keep all of the beliefs of the many posters on these forums straight in my head, sometimes little details (due to the sheer volume of them) can escape me.

That you base your argument on prejudices and project your (probably americanised) view of Lutheranism over on me, a member of the Church of Norway?

My point is still valid. It is not logical to claim that you are the member of the Catholic Church when you deny the structure of that Church which is headed up by the Papacy.

What about the Orthodox? They believe in seven sacraments – as I do. They do not believe in transubstantiation as it is expressed in Roman Catholic teaching – but I do. And they do not believe the Pope is the head of the universal Church as this is formulated in Roman Catholic teaching. What makes them ‘non-Protestants’? There must be a way to distinguish, and it cannot be ad hoc.

The Orthodox do reject the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the papacy, just as you do. However, they do not accept sola scriptura nor sola fide as it is commonly understood.

And if you have been reading MY posts (though you are relatively new to the forum) you will note that I have been greatly encouraged by the joint dialogues and hope that those Lutherans who can do so will return to the Catholic Church soon. Jon NC will vouch for me on this.

As I believe I have said maybe a trillion times on this board: Lutherans – whose name was given by Roman Catholics as a way to dismiss them – do not regard Luther as a pope. He is a theologian, but has no formal authority.

Did Luther take the name of Augustinian as a means of dismissing Augustine? Why do Lutherans take offense at the name “Lutheran” when Franciscans and Dominicans do not take offense at being called by the names of their founders?

Does that tell us something?