The designation "Protestant"

[CD4]

**I grew up in the Methodist church, and have been a member of, or connected to the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church (ELCA), the Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, and a non-denominational evangelical Church of Chirst. When asked to state my faith, I would always say Protestant…Forms for various things usually don’t give you much choice. **

---

**When my husband left the Catholic Church, three years ago, I tried to go with him, in the name of family unity…You might be interested to know that I simply could not refer to myself as a Protestant…just couldn’t get the word out. I was, and remain, a Roman Catholic. It was like trying to change the color of my eyes. **

---

I found that my Catholic faith had become ME. It was not just the Church I belonged to, but was who I was and am…

 

[Carl]

“Protestant” in my mind, and I should think the minds of any Protestants who accept the label, means any Christian group in the West (except for cults) that can legitimately trace their history back to Luther or a later reformer. Not all Protestant religions existing today were founded in protest against Rome. Some were founded in protest against a parent Protestant denomination. Yet all these denominations agree in protesting the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The label unites them in a negative rather than a positive way, yet they have to use it to describe themselves collectively.

While some Protestants might object to being called Protestant rather than, say, Lutheran or Anglican, they sure don’t mind it when the numbers are crunched. They don’t mind it, for instance, when the stats establish that the United States is dominantly a Protestant nation, whereas nobody could claim that we are dominantly a Lutheran or Anglican nation. If this nation’s dominant religion is to be identified accurately and soley by the name it calls itself, we are dominantly a Catholic nation.

So I think for political and psychological reasons Protestants have every intention of holding on to the label, whether Catholics like it or not.

 

[sapl31]

It seems obvious to me that you can not lump all protestants together. If they all believed exactly the same there would not be demoninations. Also there are orginizations that catholics call protestant that other Christian churches do not believe to be christian such as Jehovah’s Witness and Mormon. Roman Catholics want to be kept seperate from other catholics why would you think other churches would not feel the same.

 

[luckyirishguy14]

I believe that anyone who believes in Christ but is not a Catholic Christian is “Protestant” because they have “protested” against our beliefs and have made their own based on their own interpretations of their “sole rule of faith”, sola scriptura.

 

[Spiri220]

Protestants do not consider Mormons to be “Protestant”.

“Martian”, maybe.

 

[Mjohn1453]

You make a huge error in lumping the Orthodox in with that group, however inadvertant it may be. The non-Chalcedon Churches would surely reject being called protestants. The non-Chalcedon Churches left communion with Rome for a varity of reasons, chief among them is that they were not able to get to the council of Chalcedon due to the persians.

 

[kevinfraser]

Gator:

Considering that the Catholic use of the word has basic negative connotations it shouldn’t be used in the manner you use it.

What manner is that, exactly? I shouldn’t use it in the manner of the strictly historical origin of the term? That seems to be your assertion.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re saying because it refers to past evil intention towards and evil done to Catholics, we should all pretend that it doesn’t. Maybe you don’t buy the true origin of the word protestant. Those German leaders sure did.

Try pitching the idea that ‘protestant’ is a benign term devoid of any possibility of evil to any Catholic family in Belfast that’s been devastated by a religiously motivated murder.

You’ve bought into revisionism and relativism and you’re trying to promote those cowardly fakes to others as though they were truth. Revisionism wants to revise the past and simply ignore the parts that identify evil done by a certain group against another group. No thanks. Which of those two groups is your belief in God descended from, Gator?

I looked up the facts because I didn’t want to just decide on something and toss it into the mix when history is so readily available as a reference. I’m interested in Truth. What were you trying to do by admonishing me against mentioning historical Truth, Gator? I was referring to the historically factual record. What were you referring to? Would you admonish me to ignore the truth of the Holy Eucharist, too?

It’s true that The Catholic Encyclopedia is a strictly Catholic document whose veracity Gator trusts implicitly–otherwise Gator wouldn’t have admonished me to ignore the facts he read there. But then I’m sure Gator also trusts the veracity of the Holy Bible, too. Another strictly Catholic document.

And you’ll notice in my original post I included not only the origin, but the development of the term’s connotation.

I think you’re very close to the kingdom, Gator.

If you’re surprised by the intensity of my response, consider how a Jew would feel being told that the term “anti-semitic” shouldn’t be used in the manner that identifies the murderous intention behind it, because the Nazis gave the term such a bad rap. Maybe the term ‘Sun’ shouldn’t be used in a way that suggests ‘heat.’

Starting with the early Christians, hundreds of millions of Catholics have been killed as martyrs to the Fullness of Christ for us, Gator. Maybe billions. I don’t buy modernist revisionism that seeks to hide the evil intentions of the past against them because history happens to shine a light on the origin of what you want to decide is truth. I don’t buy the idea that Satan has given up on his original intentions, either, Gator.

For the contextual benefit of future readers, I note that your participation in this board has been suspended by the moderator for a week. I don’t know why, but it has.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary enfold your heart with ever-more authentic service to Jesus Christ.

 

[sapl31]

Is your response to say that Catholics have done no harm to other Christian Churches? There has been evil on both sides and I am sure that God is saddened by the behavior of all of his children.

I also assume that you do not resent Roman Catholics and other Catholics being lumped together since they share the name.

 

[kevinfraser]

sapl31:

Is your response to say that Catholics have done no harm to other Christian Churches?

No. My response was to point out concise historical origin of the word Protestant because nobody was posting anything here but commentary and opinion.

Gator admonished me against pointing out historical fact in favor of political correctness. Many Catholics fold and go home when admonished to jump onto a false, but politically correct bandwagon. Ever hear of a guy named John Kerry?

I see you have included by your wording the standard-issue vague imputation that all Catholics deserve to be reviled as “just” payment for “their” sins of the past, and so should just shut up and take it on the chin no matter how matchingly vague the accusation itself is. That’s the folding thing I just referred to. Jesus warned the Apostles about “wolves among you” and like all that He promised, it’s true. So no sense taking our Creator to task for right prophecy.

sapl31:

There has been evil on both sides and I am sure that God is saddened by the behavior of all of his children.

How about I fast forward THROUGH your implication of this favourite old canard/straw man argument:

So judge, how many lashes do YOU give Catholics for war crimes “we” commited during The Crusades (or just write in “All war”).

Get the point? Hints: tar, brush.

sapl31:

I also assume that you do not resent Roman Catholics and other Catholics being lumped together since they share the name.

I find your idea that I presume some kind of proprietary right to the name ‘Catholic’ revealing. It suggests I could “resent” to be called Catholic. If you want to be technically correct, I’m Roman Catholic. That doesn’t mean I’m Roman. What is tragic about “Lithuanian Catholic” or “Ukranian Catholic” is nationalized Catholic traditions (note small ‘t’) drive political wedges into their Catholic unity. Nationalism has no proper part in Catholicism. That’s the heresy of Americanism papally denounced in the late 19th century. (Man could that light a storm). Roman Catholicism refers to the post-pagan Holy Roman Empire, which WAS the Catholic Church itself.

As a Catholic, I have no identity crisis. I don’t ‘hop’ denominations. A bizzarre idea. There’s no such THING as a denomination in the Catholic Church. You can’t compare the eastern and western rites to the 37,000+ protestant “denominations” the I.R.S. tracks. A hundred or more of them pop up in or dissappear from storefronts every weekend. A lot of protestants insist they have it all figured out. They SO don’t. It’s just ignorance of fact. And the subject of this unfortunate ignorance subsists in one word:

Magisterium.

This word separates Catholics from all the pretenders no matter what label they put on themselves. Pretenders run from it, Catholics embrace it as the pearl of great price because of its Divine Author. You follow it ABSOLUTELY, you’re Catholic. You veer off the slightest, you’re not. And believe me, it’s NOT easy to follow. The way is narrow and not wide–but you can ALWAYS come back home if you want.

Try this acid test. The next time you talk to someone who tells you they’re Catholic, but disagrees with or “dissents” from this or that teaching of the Church, ask them where they stand on the Magisterium. If their look melts into love, you’ve probably got a Catholic in full commmunion with the Church there. If they start hemming and hawing, you don’t, the end. Try it.

God love you and Mary keep you.

 

[sapl31]

Have you read your own Cathecism. I have read a great deal of it since beginning to attend the Catholic Church 7 years ago. I read some last night.

Did you know that the cathecism accepts other Christian churches and states that while they believe they loose out on the full graces that they COULD receive they believe that we are all brothers and sister in Christ.

I doesn’t say other churches are false or not christian. I doesn’t rebuke them.

I would suggest you get the book Christ Among Us and start reading on page 416. This book is an easy to read book that was written following Vatican II. It is clear that the Pope is working toward a better relationship among all of God’s children.

I get the idea that you lump all Protestant in to once category of belief. Did you know that the Nazarene Church does not teach one saved, always saved. They believe that you are saved by grace but can fall from that grace if you are not living a Christian life and then would go to hell if you do not return to grace. This is different than the Baptist and other churches. Did you know the Nazarene use the Niacene and Apostles Creed and follow pretty close to the Catholic calender including Advent and Lent.

I believe that education could help us all. I have learned much in 7 years and have come to accept the Catholic believes and find many of the very enriching, but I believe that I can not judge another’s salvation.

 

[Carl]

sap131

Roman Catholics want to be kept seperate from other catholics why would you think other churches would not feel the same.

I am puzzled by your remarks. We are not Roman Catholics. We are Catholics. This is what we call ouselves. The designation Roman came from Protestant usage starting two-three centuries ago (mostly by the Anglicans who wanted to call themselves Catholic and who therefore began to call us Roman Catholics to distinguish us from themselves).

At least this is my reading. I may be in error here. Can a historian correct me if so?

So if Protestants want to call us what we do not call ourselves, they should not object when we call them Protestants even if some do not call themselves such.

 

[sapl31]

Because

1 wrong + 1 wrong = 1 right

is that the logic.

 

[Carl]

sap131

Neither is wrong to call the other what they want to call them, provided the calling is not an insult. Neither should be offended. I don’t even mind if Protestants call me a Papist. I am, and proud of it. I don’t mind if they call me Roman Catholic, even though I call myself Catholic. Why should they mind if we call them Protestants, especially when they know very well that their numbers and relative clout increase exponentially by that title?

Moreover, when their individual religion requires that it be named in a certain context, I always call them Lutheran, Baptist, whatever, to distinguish the several hundred varieties one from the other.

Several hundred varieties did I say? How about several thousand?

Right + right = right.

 

[kevinfraser]

sapl31:

Have you read your own Cathecism.

Most certainly: 1994 edition thanks be to God.

sapl31:

I[t] doesn’t say other churches are false or not christian.

Let me clarify: non-Catholic Christian Churches by definition are non-Catholic, even if they believe in the risen body of Christ and are therefore Christian. PJPII refers to these non-Catholic bodies, and even non-Christian bodies as “ecclesial communities.” He is my hero, by the way. I have a personal story for you by PM if you like.

I think The Holy Father’s diplomatic genius in this makes everything much clearer by avoiding the problem of the definition of the word ‘Church’ which Protestants took with them when they denounced the Church of Christ (which is the official name of the Catholic Church) to follow non-Apostolically authorized men and call themselves instead The Church of Luther, then The Church of England…

sapl31:

I[t] doesn’t rebuke them.

Nor did I. I did point to the factual historical origin of the word ‘protestant’: the official protest registered by certain German authorities against the mere presence of Catholics within their borders. That aggression was a pretty good example of the quality of intolerance, yes? I did indeed mean to recall the intolerance which fuelled its start, and the individuals who promoted this intolerance. Opening an old wound? No, don’t. But do learn from the cause of the wound, for sure. Don’t want that to happen again.

I’m sure you’d agree that kicking all the Catholics out of a country because they are Catholic would be intolerant. Read about the Sudan. I should rebuke anybody who wanted to do that. Since you are a Christian, I would assume you would as well.

No modern-day protestant, obviously, is at fault for these actions of the past, nor are they responsible for the schismatic doctrines they were taught, masquerading as as truth. Nonetheless, good intention, and even Holiness in the modern day can’t erase historical origin, even if we are uncomfortable with a word’s true meaning within its historical context.

I have not judged anyone’s salvation. I have judged evil intentions and actions to be evil. As Christians we must judge all actions to live by the commandments and follow the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy. As a Catholic, I know that repentance and forgiveness can occur in any moment up to the last instant of earthly life, so I pray for the salvation of ALL we poor sinners. We includes me.

If you are protestant, I don’t blame you for past persecutions of Catholics. That would be logically absurd, not to mention un-Christian. But I do ask you to wisely acknowledge historical fact, without implying “that was then, this is now so can’t we just pretend those parts of history we don’t like didn’t happen so we can avoid the risk of unpleasant feelings occurring?”

You’re not going to find a Jew who thinks omitting any mention of the Nazi Holocaust from school books will eventually promote greater peace and understanding among peoples–even though that’s precisely what Germany did for decades after WWII.

Any such willful ignorance would express a spirit of modernistic revisionism, even acting as a starting point for accepting relativistic morality as truth. You’re Christian, so you don’t want anything to do with that stuff anyway.

sapl31:

I would suggest you get the book Christ Among Us and start reading on page 416. This book is an easy to read book that was written following Vatican II.

Here we go. I’m going to have to take this to another post… I can just hear the sound of Catholics on this board listening to the suddenly loud crickets outside town from the salloon (don’t worry).

Read on, friend. I’m on YOUR side and don’t mean to hurt, even if I am a klutz.

May Christ always teach your heart

 

[kevinfraser]

sapl31:

…get the book Christ Among Us and start reading on page 416.

I think you’re referring to Anthony J. Wilhelm’s popular book “Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith” Popular as in “many copies sold” not as in “because it’s correct.” If the back of your edition’s title page says this:

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Thomas G. Lumpkin Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: John Cardinal Dearden, Archbishop of Detroit

…then you should know that this edition’s Imprimatur was withdrawn in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Untold millions have been recruited to error by this Venus’ flytrap. Don’t join them, please.

I want to recommend to you a wonderful book to replace it. I’m not going to tell you what page to start at because I’m not trying to put an “authoritative doctrinal refutation” under your nose like I believe you thought you were doing to me – some of us DO know our faith , but I recommend it because as a cradle Catholic, I have learned more from it than I could ever have imagined: “Catholicism for Dummies” by Frs. Trigilio and Brighenti. I am as serious as a heart attack about how good this book is. Its Imprimatur stands firm and you can buy or order it from any bookstore. Don’t mistake it for the reprehensible “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Catholicism.”

You’re already reading the 1994 Catechism. No better choice. Magisterium handbook. Please do read it with your Catholic Edition Bible.

sapl31:

It is clear that the Pope is working toward a better relationship among all of God’s children.

Nobody has done more for Christian unity. That doesn’t mean he would ever slyly deny Jesus’ Magisterium as Wilhelm does.

sapl31:

… you lump all Protestant in to once category of belief.

How could I not? Non-Catholic and Catholic Christians have opposed teachings on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We believe Jesus was perfectly clear about the meaning of the last supper, and didn’t intend a symbolic puzzle.

sapl31:

…Nazarene Church does not teach on[c]e saved, always saved.

That’s good because just like sola scriptura, that error isn’t in the Bible, either.

sapl31:

They believe that you are saved by grace but can fall from that grace if you are not living a Christian life and then would go to hell if you do not return to grace.

How do they “return to grace?” Do baptisms by a pastor who falls from grace remain valid? As you know, Catholics seek absolution from Christ through our beautiful sacrament of auricular confession in the ear of a validly ordained Catholic priest.

sapl31:

…Nazarene use the Niacene and Apostles Creed and follow pretty close to the Catholic calender…

Adherence to Roman Catholic creed and liturgical calendar? I love their taste, but that doesn’t equate to magisterial Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, which is your issue, yes?

sapl31:

I believe that education could help us all.

Good call. It sure has helped me, but please be very careful about the sources you trust. Jesus promised “there will be wolves among you” and we believe ALL His promises.

sapl31:

I have learned much in 7 years and have come to accept the Catholic believes and find many of the very enriching,

Praise be to God! Sounds like you’re ready to start RCIA to continue your Catholic education. The Holy Spirit has led you to this point, so be not afraid. Just walk into a RC Church and ask for a private interview with a priest. There’s no pressure of any kind because conversion is the Holy Spirit’s job, not the priest’s.

sapl31:

but I believe that I can not judge another’s salvation.

I can’t either because I’m Catholic–we have to pray for all poor sinners (like OURSELVES!). If you just told everyone I judged someone’s eternal salvation, please show me where!

 

[twf]

Carl: "Moreover, when their individual religion requires that it be named in a certain context, I always call them Lutheran, Baptist, whatever, to distinguish the several hundred varieties one from the other.

Several hundred varieties did I say? How about several thousand?"
As a former Evangelical, I’d like to point out that a number of several thousand would include several denominations of Baptists, and several denominations of Lutherans, etc. Often a group of several local, regional, and/or national denominations are parts of greater national/global groups. For example, there are 30 or 40 Mennonite/Anabaptist denominations that belong to the Mennonite World Conference. Admittedly, these conferences are usually very loose groups, but the denominations within them would share the same beliefs (at least very very close). So it is not quite accurate to say that all the various Protestant denominations are at odds with each other on doctrine.

 

[Contarini]

lacoloratura:

The other night, my non-Catholic husband and I were discussing religious topics, and he insisted that it was incorrect for me to lump all non-Catholic Christians under the term “Protestant,” since they are not all the same, and some of them don’t think of themselves that way. He says that “Protestant” is a term that only Catholics use in the sense of anyone who is a non-Catholic Christian. I’d love to hear opinions on this from other non-Catholic Christians.

Of course “Protestant” is not a general term for all non-Catholic Christians. Surely you don’t call the Orthodox “Protestants”? Neither are Old Catholics or non-Chalcedonians “Protestants.” But it is a perfectly appropriate term for all those Christians who derive from the Reformation directly or indirectly–in other words, pretty much anyone who isn’t Catholic, Orthodox (Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian), or Old Catholic. That’s the way it’s normally used, and not just by Catholics. Romanian Orthodox use the term “neo-Protestants” for the more modern groups, and that’s not a bad distinction. In English we usually say something like “classical Protestants” for the groups deriving directly from the Reformation, and “free church Protestants” for the later, more radical groups. But we’re all Protestants in the sense that we derive from the Reformation in some form. And “free church” Protestants must not be allowed to forget their origin.

Edwin

 

[Gene_C]

I’ve been thinking about this lately. Do we lump all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian groups under the term Protestant? I think we can categorize Christianity this way: Catholic, Orthodox (and there are many groups and subsets here), Anglican (once considered a “sister” church by Rome but then that changed), Lutheran, Calvinist/Reformed, Anabaptist (I include all Amish, Mennonite and Baptist groups here) and Pentecostal/Charismatic (these “Holy Spirit churches” could be considered a subset of Anglicanism).

I could be wrong about the Anglicans being considered a “sister” church but I thought I read it somewhere on the Net. Anyway, Methodists are a breakaway from Anglicanism. There are many different Methodist groups. I think the Church of the Nazarene came out of the Methodists and William Booth, the founder of The Salvation Army, was a Methodist. There is also a case that can be made for Pentecostal churches coming out of the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition. Wesleyan churches hold to the holiness tradition and early Pentecostal preachers were from the holiness tradition.

GC

 

[azcelt]

luther pleaded that no one call themselves lutherans,he preferred the simple title of christians.in many parts of the world they call themselves evangelical catholics,meaning evangelical in spreading the good news of the gospel,and catholic in there beliefs in the ancient creeds.in christ,celt

 

[alterserver_07]

Yes because they are protesting against the true Church.