What do Protestant really believe about the Catholic Church?

[GKMotley]

And all faithful RCs should so affirm, at whatever the appropriate level of theological certainty. As I always say.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Augustinian:

Roseeurekacross:

I have never met a real life person who says they are Protestant.

The term “Protestant” only describes their relationship with Catholicism.

If they aren’t interested or the Catholic Church’s views or presence, the term “Protestant” is really obsolete. Protestants are “protesters” against Catholicism, that’s what the term means. If they are cooperating with, or ignoring Catholicism, the term in an anachronism.

That’s not what the term means. The formal protest was against the civil authorities, not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise, much like the protest Catholics participated in against the HHS Mandate.

Jon

We probably have gone over this in the past. Luther was the Father of a revolt.

Luther’s errors were listed HERE
Why Luther was excommunicted HERE

Not sure how that relates to my comment, Steve, but yes, you have said that before.
One thing I have noticed, however, the the changing understanding and expression of that general view by Catholic theologians over the last several decades. And the samecan be said in reverse. In both directions, apologists seem to be behind the curve.

All that said, it doesn’t change the history or meaning of the formal protest

 

[steve-b]

JonNC:

Not sure how that relates to my comment, Steve, but yes, you have said that before

Point being,
I was responding to your point when you said,

" The formal protest was against the civil authorities,not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise"

The links I gave disagreed with that view.

JonNC:

One thing I have noticed, however, the the changing understanding and expression of that general view by Catholic theologians over the last several decades. And the samecan be said in reverse. In both directions, apologists seem to be behind the curve.

All that said, it doesn’t change the history or meaning of the formal protest

Re: the History
The Church currently has had 21 ecumenical councils, 18 of those ecumenical councils and many local councils as well, took place before Luther revolted. Meaning, the church, in history, worldwide, is continuously reforming herself locally and universally… And as we see, Heretics and trouble makers will always show up with their errors, in that history, as part of the process.

As an aside the following aren’t reformers. But ecumenical and local councils addressed their errors.

 

[JonNC]

Point being,
I was responding to your point when you said,

" The formal protest was against the civil authorities,not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise "

The links I gave disagreed with that view.

They’re welcome to, but the fact is that the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529 was government, not the Church. The protest was against attempts to limit religious free exercise, not against any Catholic doctrine.

The Church currently has had 21 ecumenical councils, 18 of those ecumenical councils and many local councils as well, took place before Luther revolted. Meaning, the church, in history, worldwide, is continuously reforming herself locally and universally… And as we see, Heretics and trouble makers will always show up with their errors, in that history, as part of the process.

There are 7 truly ecumenical councils. Catholics are free to count for themselves as many as they want. But even that doesn’t respond to the point I made.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Point being,
I was responding to your point when you said,

" The formal protest was against the civil authorities,not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise "

The links I gave disagreed with that view.

They’re welcome to, but the fact is that the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529 was government, not the Church. The protest was against attempts to limit religious free exercise, not against any Catholic doctrine.

Again, point being, that was 8 years AFTER Luther’s revolt and excommunication.

The Church currently has had 21 ecumenical councils, 18 of those ecumenical councils and many local councils as well, took place before Luther revolted. Meaning, the church, in history, worldwide, is continuously reforming herself locally and universally… And as we see, Heretics and trouble makers will always show up with their errors, in that history, as part of the process.

JonNC:

There are 7 truly ecumenical councils. Catholics are free to count for themselves as many as they want. But even that doesn’t respond to the point I made.

You make the point. Those who don’t agree are not Catholic. Those 21 councils dealt with all the important business and issues of the day. Reform has been continuous in and throughout the 2000 yr Catholic Church history. Which IS in response to your point.

 

[JonNC]

Again, point being, that was 8 years AFTER Luther’s revolt and excommunication.

Irrelevant. The protest was against civil authorities. Now, if you are contending that civil authorities were really the Church, then the argument that it was civil authorities and not the Church that executed “heretics” needs to be explored.

You make the point. Those who don’t agree are not Catholic . Those 21 councils dealt with all the important business and issues of the day. Reform has been continuous in and throughout the 2000 yr Catholic Church history. Which IS in response to your point.

They were councils, but not ecumenical, because the entire Church Catholic did not participate, including most or the patriarchate.
But again, that has nothing to do with the point I am making., being, the protest was not against the Church

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Again, point being, that was 8 years AFTER Luther’s revolt and excommunication.

Irrelevant. The protest was against civil authorities. Now, if you are contending that civil authorities were really the Church, then the argument that it was civil authorities and not the Church that executed “heretics” needs to be explored.

Those authorities you speak of were Lutheran. They already by definition were Luther’s followers. Any executions you speak of, were then done by Lutherans

Besides, the Church did not allow anyone in the Church to execute anyone. That was condemned in the 13th century by an ecumenical council

the Lateran Council in 1215 , pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, Internet History Sourcebooks Project canon 3, (exterminate) comes from the Latin exterminare, William Whitaker's Words which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). In Latin it does nor mean to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. The official language of the Church is Latin . The Church does not and did not change her position on this issue of capital punishment and has been consistent on the issue… Even pope Francis today is speaking out against capital punishment and there being no good reason for it…

You make the point. Those who don’t agree are not Catholic . Those 21 councils dealt with all the important business and issues of the day. Reform has been continuous in and throughout the 2000 yr Catholic Church history. Which IS in response to your point.

JonNC:

They were councils, but not ecumenical, because the entire Church Catholic did not participate, including most or the patriarchate.

Absolutely the Church was present. Those who leave aren’t in the Church any longer. When “Patriarchs” leave, they no longer are “IN” the Church. When Judas left, did that effect the Church from being one? Nope! Did it mean the Church wasn’t complete? Nope!

JonNC:

But again, that has nothing to do with the point I am making., being, the protest was not against the Church

If this has nothing to do with the Church, Why is “Lutheran” and “Protestant” even used together in the language of the Diet? AND what/who are they against in that episode?

 

[JonNC]

Those authorities you speak of were Lutheran. They already by definition were Luther’s followers. Any executions you speak of, were then done by Lutherans

No they weren’t. The majority were Roman Catholics trying to reinstate the limits place on the Evangelical Catholics by the Edict of Worms.

Today in Catholic History – The Second Diet of Speyer and the beginnings of Protestantism «

There were many reformers executed going back to Huss. Neither the Lutherans nor Rome had clean hands.

Besides, the Church did not allow anyone in the Church to execute anyone. That was condemned in the 13th century by an ecumenical council

Then clearly the protest was of civil authorities, and not against the RC Church.

Absolutely the Church was present.

Part of the Church.

Those who leave aren’t in the Church any longer. When “Patriarchs” leave, they no longer are “IN” the Church. When Judas left, did that effect the Church from being one? Nope! Did it mean the Church wasn’t complete? Nope!

And they say the same about Rome. I don’t have a fog in that hunt. That’s a thousand year Schism Rome is party to. Fix it, and the entire Church Catholic will be better.
To compare your fellow Christians to Judas is contrary to your own communion’s teachings.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Those authorities you speak of were Lutheran. They already by definition were Luther’s followers. Any executions you speak of, were then done by Lutherans

No they weren’t. The majority were Roman Catholics trying to reinstate the limits place on the Evangelical Catholics by the Edict of Worms.

No No No
Those are Protestants you refer to. Your link said so. I quote "This protest would result in the term “Protestant” to be applied first of all to Lutherans and then to all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians."

That said, this points specifically to Religious groups. As stated Protestant is identified as all those who are non-Catholic… starting with Lutherans…

JonNC:

Today in Catholic History – The Second Diet of Speyer and the beginnings of Protestantism «

There were many reformers executed going back to Huss. Neither the Lutherans nor Rome had clean hands.

I posted canon 3 from the Lateran council in the year 1215. 300 years before all this. If someone in the Church goes off the rails, they can’t point back to the Church for permission / approval for their deeds in executing anyone. The Church has been against such actions consistently and they put it in writing for anyone to see, who is interested…

JonNC:

Then clearly the protest was of civil authorities, and not against the RC Church.

If this was purely civil, why the religious groups references?

Absolutely the Church was present.

JonNC:

Part of the Church.

Nope! The successor to Peter + All those fully united to Peter’s successor, = the Church.

Those who leave aren’t in the Church any longer. When “Patriarchs” leave, they no longer are “IN” the Church. When Judas left, did that effect the Church from being one? Nope! Did it mean the Church wasn’t complete? Nope!

JonNC:

And they say the same about Rome. I don’t have a fog in that hunt. That’s a thousand year Schism Rome is party to. Fix it, and the entire Church Catholic will be better.
To compare your fellow Christians to Judas is contrary to your own communion’s teachings.

The Catholic Church was sitting at the table at last supper. Judas left the table, he broke communion, to do his dastardly deed. AND Jesus never promised a Judas free Church. If all those separated from Our Lord’s Church stay away, and NEVER return, that still doesn’t effect the Catholic Church in which Jesus promised, not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

we have lots of respect for Anglicans here and even do ecumenical services and joint christmas carols with Anglicans. We get invited to their things and they get invited to ours.

Its pretty awesome

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Exactly and my point is, these people are too busy worshipping God their way to worry or have time to protest against Catholics. Those that are protesting are mostly catholics themselves and laity and non religious due to the Historic Sex Abuse here, but that cuts across all religions here as the Royal Commission discovered.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

and we have gone over the fact that the Catholic Church of the Latin Rite , the Roman Catholic Church commemorated the 500 Anniversary with the Lutherans this past year.

Our separated brethren

 

[JonNC]

No No No
Those are Protestants you refer to. Your link said so. I quote "This protest would result in the term “Protestant” to be applied first of all to Lutherans and then to all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians."

Exactly. Properly understood, Protestant refers to the participants in the formal protest at the Second Diet at Speyer, not the RC Church.
It was not s protest against the Church or doctrine.

If this was purely civil, why the religious groups references?

The Church was very influential, hence the willingness of civil authorities to do their bidding to reimpose the Edict of Worms.

Nope! The successor to Peter + All those fully united to Peter’s successor, = the Church.

And all those Baptized into His one True Church.

The Catholic Church was sitting at the table at last supper. Judas left the table, he broke communion, to do his dastardly deed.

Yes he did. He rejected the faith, which neither the Orthodox nor so called Protestants have done.

If all those separated from Our Lord’s Church stay away, and NEVER return, that still doesn’t effect the Catholic Church in which Jesus promised, not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.

Staying away from unity is a mutual sin, including the Bishop of Rome.

 

[JonNC]

Exactly and my point is, these people are too busy worshipping God their way to worry or have time to protest against Catholics. Those that are protesting are mostly catholics themselves…

This part is exactly correct. Most Protestant Christians, regardless of their communion or denomination, view the Catholic church on the next corner as just another church.
While I am not going to comment on the abuse scandal, Catholics here have rightly participated in a protest against the government forcing church related organizations to provide contraceptives in health insurance they provide their employees (HHS Mandate). Lutherans and others joined them in that noble protest.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am in Australia, I am speaking for Australia with the abuse scandal. Here it is the main contention against religion, any religion here, as it was across the board and included government organisations, religious and laity.

Catholics and other religious denominations here did a bit of protesting prior to that SSM survey or whatever they like to call it, last year. It was nice to see christians joining together to protest.

 

[GKMotley]

I recall when our then (late, now) rector was on good terms with the local diocesan RC bishop.

Ya got to be careful about them Anglicans, though. Overall, we’re a motley crew. Like a box of chocolates.

 

[PickyPicky]

Some of them have nutty centres.

 

[GKMotley]

And there is no consensus, amongst the crew, which are those, and which are the squishy middles, inter alia.

Like, which are stale and past their shelf life; unfit for use.

 

[steve-b]

No No No
Those are Protestants you refer to. Your link said so. I quote "This protest would result in the term “Protestant” to be applied first of all to Lutherans and then to all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians."

If this was purely civil, why the religious groups references?

JonNC:

The Church was very influential, hence the willingness of civil authorities to do their bidding to reimpose the Edict of Worms.

So it IS Religious and about the Church?

Nope! The successor to Peter + All those fully united to Peter’s successor, = the Church.

JonNC:

And all those Baptized into His one True Church.

steve-b:

Valid baptism makes one a candidate for, and puts them on the road to enter the Catholic Church. Is Valid Baptism Enough to Be a Catholic? | Catholic Answers

The Catholic Church was sitting at the table at last supper. Judas left the table, he broke communion, to do his dastardly deed.

JonNC:

Yes he did. He rejected the faith, which neither the Orthodox nor so called Protestants have done.

steve-b:

Technically,

Isn’t that what all people do to an extent, who leave

• the only Church Our Lord established for our salvation, on Peter and those in union with him,
• in favor of putting their hope in other interests, invented by man?

If all those separated from Our Lord’s Church stay away, and NEVER return, that still doesn’t effect the Catholic Church in which Jesus promised, not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.

JonNC:

Staying away from unity is a mutual sin, including the Bishop of Rome.

steve-b:

Popes have been the ones to initiate and reach out to the divided to come back to complete unity… If the divided choose to remain divided then that is on them.

 

[JonNC]

So it IS Religious and about the Church?

Does the Catholic Church teach opposition to religious liberty? If so, where is it in the CCC?

Staying away from unity is a mutual sin, including the Bishop of Rome.

Crossing out truth doesn’t change it.

Popes have been the ones to initiate and reach out to the divided to come back to complete unity… If the divided choose to remain divided then that is on them.

Are you aware of the fact that others, particularly communions who share a strong belief and practice in word and sacrament with the Roman type of Catholics, that same desire for unity?
Yes, I thank God everyday for the great recent popes such as John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is a shame men of great caliber did not sit in that Holy See 500 years ago.