What are protestants?

[Lightbee]

Are all non-Catholic churches “protestant”?

I ask because when I spoke to our local priest, he said my baptism in a particular church may not be recognised in the Catholic Church. My husband later said he understood that non-denominational Christian churches were not recognised as protestant churches by the Catholic church.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

 

[xformer7]

It would not be the church per se, but whether they use the “trinitarian formula.” Were you baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit using water?

 

[RedBert]

Are all non-Catholic churches “protestant”?

no

and even if you meant "Are all non-Catholic CHRISTIAN churches “protestant”?

it is still no

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Other_groups_rejecting_Protestant_label

 

[Church_Militant]

It would not be the church per se, but whether they use the “trinitarian formula.” Were you baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit using water?

That would be the deciding point, not whether the faith community is protestant or not. Good answer Xformer!

 

[Lightbee]

I can see how that fits for the Mormon church, but are there any churches who would consider themselves Protestant that the Catholic church would not? Thinking especially in terms of whether sacraments of baptism and marriage would be valid in those churches.

 

[Church_Militant]

I can see how that fits for the Mormon church, but are there any churches who would consider themselves Protestant that the Catholic church would not? Thinking especially in terms of whether sacraments of baptism and marriage

would be valid in those churches.Valid, yes…sacramental, no.

To answer the rest of your question though, I don’t think the Church does that because those communities will have chosen to consider themselves Protestant.

The Church simple considers them outside the Catholic faith.

 

[1ke]

I can see how that fits for the Mormon church, but are there any churches who would consider themselves Protestant that the Catholic church would not? Thinking especially in terms of whether sacraments of baptism and marriage would be valid in those churches.

The word Protestant has no canonical meaning in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church doesn’t “consider” ecclesial communities in these terms. The Church considers communities by, basically, two criteria: validity of Orders/Apostolic Succession (making them schismatic but true Churches with valid Sacraments) and Trinitarian baptism (making them Christian, ecclesial communities).

The term Protestant is a descriptor used in general conversation to distinguish those non-Catholic ecclesial communities that have their origin in the Reformation and-- loosley-- those that descend from these original groups that directly broke away from the Catholic Church. It does now get used to refer to, in general, all non-Catholic Christian groups. But that technically isn’t correct.

So, don’t waste your time trying to define a group in terms of whether or not they are “protestant.” The Catholic Church doens’t define groups that way.

In terms of marriage and baptism the Catholic Church considers each case individually.

Regarding marriage, if the couple were otherwise free to marry they marry validly when they marry each other civilly or in a religious ceremony of their own faith tradition. If they are both baptized, the marriage is valid and a sacrament. If one or both or not baptized, the marriage is valid and called a natural marriage. This is true regardless of whether they have a religous affiliation or not.

Regarding baptism, the baptism is valid if water was poured, or they were immersed, in the Trinitarian formula. The Church has specifically rejected Mormon baptism as invalid. For most ecclesial communities, it is valid because they accept the Trinitarian creed and believe in the Trinity. Individual baptisms would be examined upon entry into the Catholic Church, and if there is doubt about validity a conditional baptism is performed.

 

[crazzeto]

I can see how that fits for the Mormon church, but are there any churches who would consider themselves Protestant that the Catholic church would not? Thinking especially in terms of whether sacraments of baptism and marriage would be valid in those churches.

No…

 

[Kotton]

I can see how that fits for the Mormon church, but are there any churches who would consider themselves Protestant that the Catholic church would not? Thinking especially in terms of whether sacraments of baptism and marriage would be valid in those churches.

Beside the Mormon church there would be the Oneness Pentacostals whose baptism is invalid, but I don’t know if they consider themseves to be protestant.

 

[CD_Michels]

I think that the Protestant churches are the ones that label themselves as ‘Protestant’ since it means they are protesting something the Catholic Church teaches.

For the baptism to be valid, it has to be done with flowing water (pour water on head, or submersion) and “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” to be valid. If this is left out or changed to their jobs instead of titles, ex: creator, redeemer and sanctifier, it is not valid.

Many main-stream ‘protestant’ churches meet this criteria. However, the ‘non-denominational’ churches vary so much from pastor to pastor, that no blanket rule can apply to them. One pastor may teach something extremely close to the true teachings of Christianity, and the next could be so far off that the only thing that links them to Christianity is the reference to the name of Jesus.

Now, I am not sure what you meant about being non-Catholic but not protestant… but I will expand on that to the point that I know. Typically to be understood to be Christian, they have to believe in the Holy Trinity. There are churches that believe that Jesus was just a man and not God, so they are out. And there are churches that believe in the Trinity, but they also believe there are other gods, so they are out (as far as being Christian).

Now, there are the schismatic Churches. Catholic means ‘Universal’ since they all follow the same doctrine rather than each individual church making up its own. In 1054 there was a dispute between the heads of the eastern Church and with Rome which caused the Catholic Church to be split into two Churches. Since, what is now called the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church had valid Bishops and valid Priest, they have valid Sacraments to this day. In 1534 King Henry VIII split from the Roman Church and created the Church of England. Since his church was started with Catholic Bishops and Priests and for the most part, kept to the Catholic teachings, the Church of England’s Sacraments are also valid. These schismatic Churches could be called Catholic, though not ‘Roman’ (or Latin) Catholic since they deny the authority that Jesus gave Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Since these churches are ‘protesting’ the authority of Peter, they could be called both Protestant and Catholic.

This is why I identify myself as a ‘Roman Catholic’ rather than just saying ‘Catholic’.

 

[thistle]

I think that the Protestant churches are the ones that label themselves as ‘Protestant’ since it means they are protesting something the Catholic Church teaches.

For the baptism to be valid, it has to be done with flowing water (pour water on head, or submersion) and “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” to be valid. If this is left out or changed to their jobs instead of titles, ex: creator, redeemer and sanctifier, it is not valid.

Many main-stream ‘protestant’ churches meet this criteria. However, the ‘non-denominational’ churches vary so much from pastor to pastor, that no blanket rule can apply to them. One pastor may teach something extremely close to the true teachings of Christianity, and the next could be so far off that the only thing that links them to Christianity is the reference to the name of Jesus.

Now, I am not sure what you meant about being non-Catholic but not protestant… but I will expand on that to the point that I know. Typically to be understood to be Christian, they have to believe in the Holy Trinity. There are churches that believe that Jesus was just a man and not God, so they are out. And there are churches that believe in the Trinity, but they also believe there are other gods, so they are out (as far as being Christian).

Now, there are the schismatic Churches. Catholic means ‘Universal’ since they all follow the same doctrine rather than each individual church making up its own. In 1054 there was a dispute between the heads of the eastern Church and with Rome which caused the Catholic Church to be split into two Churches. Since, what is now called the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church had valid Bishops and valid Priest, they have valid Sacraments to this day. In 1534 King Henry VIII split from the Roman Church and created the Church of England. Since his church was started with Catholic Bishops and Priests and for the most part, kept to the Catholic teachings, the Church of England’s Sacraments are also valid. These schismatic Churches could be called Catholic, though not ‘Roman’ (or Latin) Catholic since they deny the authority that Jesus gave Peter as the first Pope of the Church. Since these churches are ‘protesting’ the authority of Peter, they could be called both Protestant and Catholic.

This is why I identify myself as a ‘Roman Catholic’ rather than just saying ‘Catholic’.

Just remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church. It is one of 23 churches which comprise the Catholic Church, albeit it is the largest. The other 22 are the various Eastern Catholic Churches which submit to Rome and are not schismatic.

 

[1ke]

Now, there are the schismatic Churches. Catholic means ‘Universal’ since they all follow the same doctrine rather than each individual church making up its own.

Catholic with a lower case c means “universal.” When capitalized, it is a title referring to a specific Church.

In 1054 there was a dispute between the heads of the eastern Church and with Rome which caused the Catholic Church to be split into two Churches. Since, what is now called the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church had valid Bishops and valid Priest, they have valid Sacraments to this day.

The Orthodox do not refer to themselves as the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. Neither does the Catholic Church refer to them this way. Each of the Orthodox Churches are particular Churches, and they each have their own designation, i.e. Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.

In 1534 King Henry VIII split from the Roman Church and created the Church of England. Since his church was started with Catholic Bishops and Priests and for the most part, kept to the Catholic teachings, the Church of England’s Sacraments are also valid.

This is not an accurate statement. The church of England does not have valid apostolic succession, nor does it have valid Holy Orders. Therefore, it does not have valid sacraments of Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, or Anointing. The Pope declared their Orders invalid many years ago.

These schismatic Churches could be called Catholic, though not ‘Roman’ (or Latin) Catholic since they deny the authority that Jesus gave Peter as the first Pope of the Church.

It is not accurate to refer to them as Catholic. If they have valid Apostolic Succesion and Orders it is appropriate to refer to them as Churches.

This is why I identify myself as a ‘Roman Catholic’ rather than just saying ‘Catholic’.

If you belong to the Latin Rite, this is appropriate. A Byzantine Catholic or a Maronite Catholic, or members of the other Rites would not call themselves Roman Catholic.

 

[NHInsider]

It has become quite common for the rapidly-spreading independent American “churches” to proclaim themselves “neither Catholic nor Protestant, just Christian.” This goes along with their claim to have “returned” to “New Testament” Christianity.

And your priest is probably concerned that there is no real way to determine whether or not your baptism is valid, since each of these “churches” follow the beliefs of their individual pastors.

 

[Rolltide]

The baptisms of Jehovah’s Witnesses are also invalid, as they do not believe in the Trinity.

 

[CD_Michels]

This is not an accurate statement. The church of England does not have valid apostolic succession, nor does it have valid Holy Orders. Therefore, it does not have valid sacraments of Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, or Anointing. The Pope declared their Orders invalid many years ago.

Sorry, you are mistaken. The original bishops in the Church of England were Catholic Bishops, so that is their apostolic succession.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England (I know this isn’t a ‘Catholic’ source, but it was the quickest to find.)

Their priests that have come over to the Catholic Church have always been recognized as priests even if they were married. And just recently Pope Benedict has made this even more formal with an invitation.
dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1221750/Pope-Benedict-XVI-paves-way-thousands-disaffected-Anglicans-join-Catholic-Church-Rome-Anglicans.html

*The term “Latin Rite” was once clearly synonymous with Western Church, a term that some continue to use exclusively of the Church in communion with the Holy See and its Bishop the Pope.[3] In this sense, “Western Church” is distinguished from the “Eastern Catholic Churches” (plural), whose liturgies use the languages and rituals that were dominant in their areas at the time of their formation, or modern languages such as Arabic. However, except in the context of the Catholic Church, “Western Church” is most frequently understood as synonymous with “Western Christianity” and as distinguished from “Eastern Christianity”, making it necessary in such contexts to use the more specific term “Western Catholic Church”. Latin Church is yet another term used for the particular Church in question. This term appears, for instance, in the opening canon of both the 1917 and the 1983 editions of the Code of Canon Law.[4] *
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Catholic_Church

You are correct that I misspoke when I said the “Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.” I combined the two names for the same Church:
The Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church[note 1] and also the Eastern Orthodox Church,[4]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

When I was referring to Catholic as Universal, I was simply stating for those that did not know, how the name Catholic first got applied to the Church. Since many do not know what the term Catholic means. I also do not believe that by picking apart my post added anything to the topic of 'What are protestants?"

 

[1ke]

Sorry, you are mistaken. The original bishops in the Church of England were Catholic Bishops, so that is their apostolic succession.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England (I know this isn’t a ‘Catholic’ source, but it was the quickest to find.)

You are correct that the original bishops in the Anglican Communion were Catholic bishops. You are not correct that they maintained their Apostolic Succession. They did not.

Pope Leo XIII declared their Orders invalid in the Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae.

Wikipedia is incorrect.

Their priests that have come over to the Catholic Church have always been recognized as priests even if they were married.

This is not correct. The Pastoral Provision of 1980 given by John Paul II made it possible for a *married *priest of the Anglican Communion to *become *a Catholic priest through ordination (making an exception to Latin Rite canon law and also establishing the Anglican Use liturgy within the Latin Rite).

Anglican Communion priets must go through formation and ordination to become a Catholic priest. They do not have valid Holy Orders within the Anglican Communion.

And just recently Pope Benedict has made this even more formal with an invitation.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1221750/Pope-Benedict-XVI-paves-way-thousands-disaffected-Anglicans-join-Catholic-Church-Rome-Anglicans.html

The Pastoral Provision established by JPII is still in place, and Anglican Communion priests may seek ordination. B16 further enabled entire parishes and diocese to enter by outlining structural issues and governance issues.

I also do not believe that by picking apart my post added anything to the topic of 'What are protestants?"

I am sorry you consider correcting inaccurate information to be “picking apart” your post.

It most certainly does add to the discussion because it shows that the real distinction must continue to be valid baptism and valid Apostolic Succession and a good understanding of who has and who doesn’t have Apostolic Succession.

 

[Drawmack]

Are all non-Catholic churches “protestant”?

I ask because when I spoke to our local priest, he said my baptism in a particular church may not be recognised in the Catholic Church. My husband later said he understood that non-denominational Christian churches were not recognised as protestant churches by the Catholic church.

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

My understanding is that only Mormon and JW baptisms are not recognized by the Catholic Church. Though, if you were baptized by a church whose formula could not be verified then I could understand the Catholic Church not accepting it just to be on the safe side.