Suggestions for Catholic Apologists 1.0

[RNRobert]

I really do think that the term “Protestant” really does apply to non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian denominations. While only a few have existed since the Reformation (like the Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.), as MrS. pointed out, they all agree that Catholicism is wrong (even if they can’t agree on anything else). Plus, they often “protest” each other, leaving the church they’re in if it doesn’t suit them. I saw this happen as a Baptist. At the church I attended, the members met one Sunday evening a month to discuss and vote on church business. Well, at one of these meetings, the minister proposed a plan to have a group of elders decide this instead of the whole church. The vote was roughly 50-50, and everyone had Bible quotes to back up their point of view. We even had guest preachers weighing in on the issue (one of whom used Acts 1:26 -where the Apostles ‘cast their lots’ decide who would replace Judas- as Scriptural proof for the democratic method of deciding church issues). . Eventually matters came to a head, and the minsiter got fed up and left to start his own non-denominational church, taking half the congregation with him.
Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1)

 

[Sixtus]

As a Catholic I am probably not the best one to share a voice but it does appear that most who call themselves Protestant are actually not protest-ant at all, but share a lot of our values.

They may not be Orthodox Catholic but they are Orthodox Chrisitians.

My idea of a Protest-ant would be JW’s or SDA. They are non-orthodox and therefore as much against mainstream Protestantism as they appear against Catholic or Orthodox.

 

[lak611]

As a Catholic I am probably not the best one to share a voice but it does appear that most who call themselves Protestant are actually not protest-ant at all, but share a lot of our values.

They may not be Orthodox Catholic but they are Orthodox Chrisitians.

My idea of a Protest-ant would be JW’s or SDA. They are non-orthodox and therefore as much against mainstream Protestantism as they appear against Catholic or Orthodox.

My Methodist and Lutheran family members and friends are not anti-Catholic, nor do they think the Catholic Church is wrong. They are just sticking with the churches they grew up and were raised in.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

As a Catholic I am probably not the best one to share a voice but it does appear that most who call themselves Protestant are actually not protest-ant at all, but share a lot of our values.

They may not be Orthodox Catholic but they are Orthodox Chrisitians.

My idea of a Protest-ant would be JW’s or SDA. They are non-orthodox and therefore as much against mainstream Protestantism as they appear against Catholic or Orthodox.

Thank you I like what you say:thumbsup:

 

[colliric]

There is a huge logical difference between beliving one is correct about something and believing one is incapable of being wrong.

I may take a math test and be absolutely possible I aced it with a 100 score…that does not mean that I am incapable of error in math.

Sheesh, it doesn’t even mean my math test is error free. A higher authority may grade this test and find errors of which I am unaware.

Unless we (as Protestants) are saying that we are incapable of being wrong (as the pope claims), the accusation that “all Protestants are their own popes” is just silly.

Nope, Disagree with this.

Firstly because the Pope is only infallible when he talks from the chair of St Peter on issues pertaining only to Doctrine and interpretation of the Bible, and he is very constrained, he cannot refute the infallible interpretation of a previous pope, only he can clarify it(E.g Transubstantiation) and he can set doctrine on interpretation of passages of the bible which the church has yet to rule on(trust me there is enough work for another millenia of popes, or even more more! They have yet to even decide how Genesis is to Intepreted! is theastic evolution in there somewhere? is seven day creationism real? or is it all a nice but not entirly scientific tale of creation?).

When he rules on how the interpretation of the passage is to be applied in everyday life, he is not infallible, another pope may come along later and may decide that the previous pope’s implementation may not entirely be the right way to implement, such an instance occurred with Confession, originally it was very public penance which was required by the Church, but then another pope came along and said something along the lines of “you only need to do it in the presence of a Priest, not in front of the whole congregation, if you do not want to do that” changing the way an Implementation of biblical doctrine occurred. Another pope may come along and say something different later on. Most of the stuff you hear from the pope is simply about morals and how we can live to be good Christians, etc and I would say most of it is not infallible.

But the pope can commit sin like anyone else and even the pope has to go to confession(JP2 went twice a week). He’s not perfect, heck the first pope renounced Jesus thrice, then remembered what Jesus had fortold him.

Secondly this is exactly what protestants in the entirity do. They interpret the bible from a choosen teacher and both teacher and pupil believe they have the correct interpretation, therefore the protestant forgoes the Catholic interpretation and the correct canon of the bible, in favor of their own. And such the protestant becomes their own interpretor, and therefore takes the role of the Pope, who is god’s appointed interpretor of scripture. Which is odd because none of these so called teachers have a little thing called “Apostolic Sucession” unlike the pope.

 

[dranzal]

Instead of the problematic “Protestant” title we have thus far stamped on our non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Anglican Christian friends, please consider the following alternatives.

1. NCNONAC = Non-Catholic, Non-Orthodox, Non-Anglican Christian
   This one is rather wordy, dontcha think?

I like these better…

1. AC = Almost Catholic
2. PC = Pre-Catholic
3. CWB = Catholic Wanna Be
4. C-E = Catholic minus Eucharist

Any other alternatives out there? Just trying to help here.

 

[colliric]

Instead of the problematic “Protestant” title we have thus far stamped on our non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Anglican Christian friends, please consider the following alternatives.

1. NCNO = Non-Catholic, Non-Orthodox,
   This one is rather wordy, dontcha think?

I like these better…

1. AC = Almost Catholic
2. PC = Pre-Catholic
3. CWB = Catholic Wanna Be
4. C-E = Catholic minus Eucharist

Any other alternatives out there? Just trying to help
here.

Corrected…

Anglicans are actually covered by the second one, not the first one…

 

[Sixtus]

My Methodist and Lutheran family members and friends are not anti-Catholic, nor do they think the Catholic Church is wrong. They are just sticking with the churches they grew up and were raised in.

Amen

 

[Sixtus]

. NCNO = Non-Catholic, Non-Orthodox,
This one is rather wordy, dontcha think?

I like these better…

1. AC = Almost Catholic

1. PC = Pre-Catholic

1. CWB = Catholic Wanna Be

1. C-E = Catholic minus Eucharist

Any other alternatives out there? Just trying to help
here.

Let me help: What about

N. P. Catholic as Non Protestant.

N. MS P Catholic as Non Mainstream Protestant.

I could think of more but the moderators might object.

Am I taking the p… out of the Church that I love or my brothers and sisters in faith?

No, In the spirit of his Holiness, I am just doing my duty as Orthodox Catholic and standing up for my Seperated Breathren.

 

[mozart-250]

Nope, Disagree with this.

Firstly because the Pope is only infallible when he talks from the chair of St Peter on issues pertaining only to Doctrine and interpretation of the Bible, and he is very constrained, he cannot refute the infallible interpretation of a previous pope, only he can clarify it(E.g Transubstantiation) and he can set doctrine on interpretation of passages of the bible which the church has yet to rule on(trust me there is enough work for another millenia of popes, or even more more! They have yet to even decide how Genesis is to Intepreted! is theastic evolution in there somewhere? is seven day creationism real? or is it all a nice but not entirly scientific tale of creation?).

When he rules on how the interpretation of the passage is to be applied in everyday life, he is not infallible, another pope may come along later and may decide that the previous pope’s implementation may not entirely be the right way to implement, such an instance occurred with Confession, originally it was very public penance which was required by the Church, but then another pope came along and said something along the lines of “you only need to do it in the presence of a Priest, not in front of the whole congregation, if you do not want to do that” changing the way an Implementation of biblical doctrine occurred. Another pope may come along and say something different later on. Most of the stuff you hear from the pope is simply about morals and how we can live to be good Christians, etc and I would say most of it is not infallible.

But the pope can commit sin like anyone else and even the pope has to go to confession(JP2 went twice a week). He’s not perfect, heck the first pope renounced Jesus thrice, then remembered what Jesus had fortold him.

Secondly this is exactly what protestants in the entirity do. They interpret the bible from a choosen teacher and both teacher and pupil believe they have the correct interpretation, therefore the protestant forgoes the Catholic interpretation and the correct canon of the bible, in favor of their own. And such the protestant becomes their own interpretor, and therefore takes the role of the Pope, who is god’s appointed interpretor of scripture. Which is odd because none of these so called teachers have a little thing called “Apostolic Sucession” unlike the pope.

???

Maybe I am dense, but I don’t see what you disagree with. Probably I’m just very tired.

I understand the pope is only infallible under prescribed circumstances. I understand there is a difference between infallibility and impeccability and there is no link between the two (why there shouldn’t be a link doesn’t make sense to me but that is another thread).

As far as the last paragraph goes, you are making the assumptions that:

• the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the correct one
• the Catholic canon is the correct one
• the pope is God’s interpretor of Scripture
• apostolic succession is the difference

To Protestants, these four assumptions are debatable.

But I don’t know the point of the final paragraph except that maybe Protestants are their own popes when the pope is not teaching with infallibility. But when the pope is not speaking with infallibility there is no logical difference between the pope teaching and Billy Graham teaching.

I must be very tired. Going to bed.

 

[MrS]

I understand the pope is only infallible under prescribed circumstances. I understand there is a difference between infallibility and impeccability and there is no link between the two (why there shouldn’t be a link doesn’t make sense to me but that is another thread).

impeccability is a quality one has
infallibility is a negative protection from the Holy Spirit that will keep the Church from declaring doctrinal error.

As far as the last paragraph goes, you are making the assumptions that:

• the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the correct one
  why not… can we expect less from the very Church whose members include the human authors of the NT? Others may render correct translations, they may even be impeccable, but actual interpretation is quite different,
• the Catholic canon is the correct one
  The Bible is the Book of the (from and through) Catholic Church. All are able to use it. Subtracting books from it just abuses it.
• the pope is God’s interpretor of Scripture
  The Pope is the successor of the Vicar of Christ(first was Peter)… the keeper of the Keys to the Kingdom… the prime minister who acts with the King’s authority (Isaah 20-20/Matt 16:18)… the Shepard who alone was directed to “…feed My sheep, tend My flock… feed My sheep…”
• apostolic succession is the difference
  it is a big difference. But the biggest is the Eucharist. Apostolic succession continues the line of bishops which in turn continues the only valid ordination of the only valid ministerial priesthood… which then continues His greatest gift to us… Himself in the Eucharist.

To Protestants, these four assumptions are debatable. *okay:shrug: *

But I don’t know the point of the final paragraph except that maybe Protestants are their own popes ( self-leaders) when the pope ( Christ’s choosen leader on earth) is not teaching with infallibility. But when the pope is not speaking with infallibility there is no logical difference between the pope teaching and Billy Graham teaching. (except perhaps which one has the authority to teach on matters of faith and morals, and which one has simply a talent for expressing/sharing what he has learned )

I must be very tired. Going to bed.

 

[mozart-250]

To Protestants, these four assumptions are debatable.

But here is a suggestion…

When your argument is based on assumptions that are not shared, then what is that saying about “preaching to the choir”?

You will get plenty of “amens” from the amen audience here, but arguments based on assumptions that are not common will not be convincing to an audience other than the church choir.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

But here is a suggestion…

When your argument is based on assumptions that are not shared, then what is that saying about “preaching to the choir”?

You will get plenty of “amens” from the amen audience here, but arguments based on assumptions that are not common will not be convincing to an audience other than the church choir.

Mr. Mozart,

MrS’s arguments are not assumptions…they are all scripture based…from beginning to end.

Best,

Iowa Mike

 

[mozart-250]

Mr. Mozart,

MrS’s arguments are not assumptions…they are all scripture based…from beginning to end.

Best,

Iowa Mike

…based on Catholic interpretations of the passages at hand.
…which may or may not conform to common junior high school level reading interpretation principles
…or the Scripture at hand may or may not have some level of ambiguity in its wording.

For example let’s start with Matthew 16.

Verse 18 does have some level of ambiguity because it can be a matter of debate what the grammatical construct “this rock” refers to. And this verse can easily get into points of the original language which your average Catholic/Protestant has no knowledge of. And at this point, both sides typically revert to what their respective apologists say on the original languages without the first-hand knowledge to independently verify their sources.

That having been said, the traditional Catholic interpretation at first glance to this reader who is not versed in the original languages seems at first glance to be at least as credible as traditional Protestant interpretations that seem to go through hoops, whistles, and gyrations in an attempt to disprove the Catholic interpretation. So until I read something more credible, I traditionally grant the Catholic interpretation here…

But this passage says nothing about the following scenarios:

• Whether the office of Peter would be transferred to the end of the church age.
• What specific charisms go hand-in-hand with this office.
• Whether these charisms are automatically transferred with the office until the end of the church age.
• Whether these charisms are unconditional or conditional. Example…whether they can be withdrawn if the conduct either of the office of Peter or of the church over which this officer rules is displeasing to the Lord Jesus Christ who provides these charisms.
• How division in the church (where A logically splits into A’ and B) impacts these charisms.

Even if I grant the traditional Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, you still are left with at least the assumptions above.

And the statement

The Bible is the Book of the (from and through) Catholic Church. All are able to use it. Subtracting books from it just abuses it.

contains the assumptions:

• That when a religious entity divides into A’ and B, that only A’ is the only inheritor of A.
• That Protestants indeed subtracted 7 books (you now get into the question on what the metric is for canonicity…at what point is the OT canon fixed. Why wouldn’t the canon that Christ used is the proper one…He didn’t whine about his canon having added or missing books).

And the eucharist statement contains the assumption that Protestant denominations that believe in a type of real presence have an invalid eucharist. I don’t think that Lutherans share that assumption.

…and I could go on stating the unwritten assumptions in the traditional Catholic apologetic here, but you get my point…

 

[MrS]

…based on Catholic interpretations of the passages at hand.
…which may or may not conform to common junior high school level reading interpretation principles
…or the Scripture at hand may or may not have some level of ambiguity in its wording.

For example let’s start with Matthew 16.

Verse 18 does have some level of ambiguity because it can be a matter of debate what the grammatical construct “this rock” refers to. And this verse can easily get into points of the original language which your average Catholic/Protestant has no knowledge of. And at this point, both sides typically revert to what their respective apologists say on the original languages without the first-hand knowledge to independently verify their sources.

That having been said, the traditional Catholic interpretation at first glance to this reader who is not versed in the original languages seems at first glance to be at least as credible as traditional Protestant interpretations that seem to go through hoops, whistles, and gyrations in an attempt to disprove the Catholic interpretation. So until I read something more credible, I traditionally grant the Catholic interpretation here…

But this passage says nothing about the following scenarios:

• Whether the office of Peter would be transferred to the end of the church age.
• What specific charisms go hand-in-hand with this office.
• Whether these charisms are automatically transferred with the office until the end of the church age.
• Whether these charisms are unconditional or conditional. Example…whether they can be withdrawn if the conduct either of the office of Peter or of the church over which this officer rules is displeasing to the Lord Jesus Christ who provides these charisms.
• How division in the church (where A logically splits into A’ and B) impacts these charisms.

Even if I grant the traditional Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, you still are left with at least the assumptions above.

And the statement

contains the assumptions:

• That when a religious entity divides into A’ and B, that only A’ is the only inheritor of A.
• That Protestants indeed subtracted 7 books (you now get into the question on what the metric is for canonicity…at what point is the OT canon fixed. Why wouldn’t the canon that Christ used is the proper one…He didn’t whine about his canon having added or missing books).

And the eucharist statement contains the assumption that Protestant denominations that believe in a type of real presence have an invalid eucharist. I don’t think that Lutherans share that assumption.

…and I could go on stating the unwritten assumptions in the traditional Catholic apologetic here, but you get my point…

boy, there is a lot of good stuff to respond with… I am just passing through at the moment, so I (and probably many others) will weigh in latter… or start a separate thread (of which there are many available in the “search” pulldown at the home page.)

 

[Iowa_Mike]

…based on Catholic interpretations of the passages at hand.
…which may or may not conform to common junior high school level reading interpretation principles
…or the Scripture at hand may or may not have some level of ambiguity in its wording.

For example let’s start with Matthew 16.

Verse 18 does have some level of ambiguity because it can be a matter of debate what the grammatical construct “this rock” refers to. And this verse can easily get into points of the original language which your average Catholic/Protestant has no knowledge of. And at this point, both sides typically revert to what their respective apologists say on the original languages without the first-hand knowledge to independently verify their sources.

That having been said, the traditional Catholic interpretation at first glance to this reader who is not versed in the original languages seems at first glance to be at least as credible as traditional Protestant interpretations that seem to go through hoops, whistles, and gyrations in an attempt to disprove the Catholic interpretation. So until I read something more credible, I traditionally grant the Catholic interpretation here…

But this passage says nothing about the following scenarios:

• Whether the office of Peter would be transferred to the end of the church age.
• What specific charisms go hand-in-hand with this office.
• Whether these charisms are automatically transferred with the office until the end of the church age.
• Whether these charisms are unconditional or conditional. Example…whether they can be withdrawn if the conduct either of the office of Peter or of the church over which this officer rules is displeasing to the Lord Jesus Christ who provides these charisms.
• How division in the church (where A logically splits into A’ and B) impacts these charisms.

Even if I grant the traditional Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, you still are left with at least the assumptions above.

And the statement

contains the assumptions:

• That when a religious entity divides into A’ and B, that only A’ is the only inheritor of A.
• That Protestants indeed subtracted 7 books (you now get into the question on what the metric is for canonicity…at what point is the OT canon fixed. Why wouldn’t the canon that Christ used is the proper one…He didn’t whine about his canon having added or missing books).

And the eucharist statement contains the assumption that Protestant denominations that believe in a type of real presence have an invalid eucharist. I don’t think that Lutherans share that assumption.

…and I could go on stating the unwritten assumptions in the traditional Catholic apologetic here, but you get my point…

Mr. Mozart:

In an earlier post you said:

It is when I read the term “Protestantism” that I want to yell into my computer “there is no such thing”.

I don’t want to be picky but the word “Protestantism” from the Collins English Dictionary defines this word as follows:

1 the religion or religious system of any of the Churches of Western Christendom that are separated from the Roman Catholic Church and adhere substantially to principles established by Luther, Calvin etc. in the Reformation. 2 the Protestant Churches collectively. 3 adherence to the principles of the Reformation

I trust that your opinons and beliefs have been influenced accordingly therefore you remain in “protest” to Catholic teachings.

I also must ‘protest’ your earlier statements about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. You are correct when you say they are not biblical…they are inventions of Martin Luther when he broke from the Catholic faith. In his protest Luther declared seven books of the bible ‘non-inspired’. Why? Because these books directly and emphatically contradicted his new teachings. Like it or not the result of his ‘Sola Scriptura’ doctrine is the 6,743,982 protestant demoninations that exist today, including the one you are a member of. With respect to Sola Fide, another of Luther’s inventions, it has fallen in disfavor over time (perhaps the excluded Epistles of St. James have had some influence on the Protestant movement). But, Sole Fide is still widely accepted in many, many protestant denominations.

Luther left the Church in 1517 in protest on how the Church was handling indulgences. His protest quickly turned into a full frontal attack on the Catholic faith. So before we begin talking about what parts of scripture you accept, what parts you reject, your interpretations and so forth, I’d like to know the basis for your beliefs…you certainly know mine.

I’ve seen no scriputral support of Luther’s heresy…Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, his hate for the Catholic liturgy, etc. but there is no shortfall of scripture that supports Catholic beliefs.

I can’t go on 'cause I’m a workin stiff…but more later.

Iowa Mike

 

[mozart-250]

Mr. Mozart:
I don’t want to be picky but the word “Protestantism” from the Collins English Dictionary defines this word as follows:

The only definition here that applies to all “Protestant” branches is “2” (which is meaningless). 1 and 3 apply to those Protestant branches that label themselves as “Reformed”

I trust that your opinons and beliefs have been influenced accordingly therefore you remain in “protest” to Catholic teachings.

I am no more in “protest” against the local Catholic church than I am against the local Presbyterian church. I don’t agree with either totally, but then again neither do they with me.

If Protestantism is defined as adherance to the principles of Luther and Calvin (who are not the same BTW), then us Wesleyan types are not a part of the set “Protestantism”

I also must ‘protest’ your earlier statements about Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. You are correct when you say they are not biblical…

I think I said they are titles and lack definition. Sheesh…they aren’t even complete sentences. I can’t say whether a title is or is not Biblical. A title is meaningless in of itself. So I am not going to expend energy defending a title.

they are inventions of Martin Luther when he broke from the Catholic faith. In his protest Luther declared seven books of the bible ‘non-inspired’. Why? Because these books directly and emphatically contradicted his new teachings.

I’m not sure these titles originated with Luther BTW.

Umm…once you get into history, I have read enough to know that there is a Catholic spin on history (and a Protestant one). I have not studied history like Edwin here, and unlike most I don’t want to regurgitate spin by the assorted apologetic spin doctors.

From what I have read, the true history is quite a bit more nuanced than either the Catholic or Protestant spin doctors would have us believe.

As far as the canon goes, I’d like the historians to get together and agree on what Jesus used, please. Jesus didn’t whine about his canon having added or missing books. At any rate, I doubt whether the 7 disputed books have that much of a bearing other than praying for the dead (which in the scheme of things is relatively minor).

Like it or not the result of his ‘Sola Scriptura’ doctrine is the 6,743,982 protestant demoninations that exist today, including the one you are a member of.

This is an assumption that lacks showing cause and effect. Your logic in this statement is:

• Protestants have 6,743,982 denominations
• Protestants believe in ‘Sola Scriptura’
• Therefore ‘Sola Scriptura’ is the cause of 6,743,982 denominations.

With respect to Sola Fide, another of Luther’s inventions, it has fallen in disfavor over time (perhaps the excluded Epistles of St. James have had some influence on the Protestant movement).

Umm…there is no excluded Epistle of St. James, unless he wrote another book I am not aware of. My Bible has one book of James that follows Hebrews and precedes the epistles of Peter. I trust yours does also.

But, Sole Fide is still widely accepted in many, many protestant denominations.

A title only. Meaningless in itself.

…continued

 

[mozart-250]

Luther left the Church in 1517 in protest on how the Church was handling indulgences. His protest quickly turned into a full frontal attack on the Catholic faith. So before we begin talking about what parts of scripture you accept, what parts you reject, your interpretations and so forth, I’d like to know the basis for your beliefs…you certainly know mine.

Fair enough,

I would like to think that I accept all Scripture…why should I reject any.

In general I am a fairly conservative evangelical. Think Billy Graham…not Bob Jones or Bishop Spong.

My theological perspective is generally Wesleyan. How this matters to you is that we are not Calvinisitic, OSAS, or whatever. My reason for this is simple…this represents a development of doctrine…not a part of the apostolic Christian faith.

I attend an Assembly of God church…but am not really classic Pentecostal in theology. I guess I am charismatic/Pentecostal friendly though. In an ideal world I might be Free Methodist (how is that for a narrow denomination) or even a very conservative United Methodist. But I am not denominationally tied.

Actually over the last couple of years, I’ve been trying to broaden myself with respect to branches of Christianity that are not mine (including Catholicism). I have learned that Christians generally have institutional biases based on unfounded assumptions against branches of Christianity that are not theirs…so therefore I have been working on chucking any of mine if I found any.

Catholicism is kinda interesting because they claim to be the branch that started it all, and Protestants are often quite invincibly ignorant of the years 100-1500 in church history. Besides, the Catholics I know personally that are committed to their faith are just wonderful persons and Christians.

 

[MrS]

Catholicism is kinda interesting because they claim to be the branch that started it all, and Protestants are often quite invincibly ignorant of the years 100-1500 in church history. Besides, the Catholics I know personally that are committed to their faith are just wonderful persons and Christians.

It is:

[1] True that we claim to be the “tree” which the Lord planted to serve the world in His absence… not the branch.

[2] not true that Protestants are always ignorant of the years 100-1500… they know much… but they just were not actually around in those years,

.

 

[Janet_S]

In order to help you all become better presenters of your faith, I thought you might appreciate some constructive feedback and suggestions from the other side of the fence

So I am compiling a list themes that I have heard from y’all that really detract from what you are trying to say (at least from my perspective). So…one at a time

(1) Over use of the term Protestant.

OK. I can understand a simple term to denote the 6,743,982 branches of Christianity that are not Catholic or Orthodox. I can understand Protestant has a common definition of those branches of Christianity that can trace their roots to the historical event known as the reformation. (Now 400 years later, most of us aren’t protesting anything…from our point of view the local Catholic church is not logically different than the local Lutheran church that we don’t attend but aren’t protesting. I wish there were another term, bt for now I guess we are stuck with the term Protestant I suppose).

But “Protestantism”?? What in the wild world of sports is “Protestantism”. “Protestant” is just a term of convenience of denominations that are not Catholic or Orthodox. None of us belong to the “First Protestant Church of…” There is no unifying creed that any of our churches have to sign off on to receive the label of Protestant. Given these realities, there is no such entity as Protestantism unless it means “anything that is Christian but not Catholic or Orthodox”. Not very descriptive is it.

Oh…and one more thing. I realize there is 2,568,923 denominations of Protestant that you have to keep tabs of…and I can understand that can be very daunting at times…but here are a couple of suggestions for starters. First, try to avoid the fallacy of allness. That would be ascribing to all Protestants the characteristics of a few. Particularly when those few are a little wacky (given the millions of denominations out there, there are bound to be some wackos). Second, when the affiliation or even theological bent is known, it is more accurate to use these affiliation. Terms like Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical, Wesleyan, Calvinist…etc are more accurate than Protestant. Protestant tells me nothing other than not Catholic or Orthodox.

I assume you are being facetious when you put a number to the number of Protestant denominations since you posted three different numbers (6,743,982 & 2,568,923 & 4,589,234). Or is there a scoreboard somewhere that is constantly being updated? (Like the donation board on the Jerry Lewis Telethon.) Or maybe the number of denominations went down and then up again during the time you took to post this. Anyway, I think you would agree (and your post addresses this fact), there are many, many different versions of non-Catholic Christianity (dare I call it Protestantism?). The fact that you object to the many denominations being lumped together is proof of this.

Your post does remind me of something I always complain about. I am from the Midwest (USA), and I have relatives from the South (Alabama). When I go there, they call me a “Yankee.” This always cracks me up as I don’t usually identify myself as a victor of the civil war–actually I never associate myself with the civil war at all. But to Southerners, apparently (at least to my relatives), this is important to their identity–to be a “Yankee” has real meaning to them.

And so, the reason I bring this up is because for Catholics, the Reformation was like a civil war, and “Protestants” were the victors (if you can consider that there were victors). Christianity has never been the same since. Catholics carry with them a vague, nostalgic memory of a united Christendom, while “Protestants” (for the most part–don’t want to generalize) have no memory of a united Christendom and usually see no need for it. Sometimes they even delight in and celebrate their differences.

But for Catholics, who consider unity as such an important part of our identity, being outside the Church is an important distinction. If you are a Christian not in communion with the CC, then you are an outsider. Often times, for simplicity’s sake, we group all these outsiders together and call them “Protestants” which harkens back to that very sad memory of ours when Christendom was shattered into pieces.

So I hope this explains, in a way, the Catholic understanding of the Protestant/Catholic distinction. I personally will try to be more careful when using the “P” word, but I doubt there is any widespread remedy for the problem. Being called a “Protestant” just may be a fact of life you have to put up with. But, take heart, it can’t be any worse than being called a “Yankee.”