What does it mean to be Protestant?

[gcnuss]

Something that I always thought was pretty neat is, start with the newest Church today, and compare the difference to it and the CC. Then move on down the line. The older the Church the closest to Catholic it will be.

And something that will really blow your mind is compared to some of the so called Church’s today. The Protestatant Churchs that started from the reform. back then, and the CC are almost united today Its like we could almost overcome our differences and ban together today after seeing these new things that are happening.

Rinnie,

I agree that it is pretty neat. I rejoice in the efforts that are made toward reconciliation and, as a Lutheran, I pray that those efforts will bear fruit. I look forward to the day when we all can join together in celebration of the Holy Eucharist, preferably before we join together as members of the Church Triumphant.

 

[Jimmy_B]

What does it mean to be Protestant?

What does the word “Protestant” mean? I ask this question, because I constantly read posts here at CAF, where people claim to be non-Catholic Christians but not Protestant. What, in your opinion is the true definition of “Protestant”?

Below, is a list of various definitions of the word “Protestant”, found on an internet search.

PROTESTANT -

· an adherent of Protestantism

· of or relating to Protestants or Protestantism; “Protestant churches”; “a Protestant denomination”

· protesting

· Any of several denominations of Christianity that separated from the Roman Catholic Church based on theological or political differences during the Reformation; Someone who is a member of such a denomination; A modern Christian denomination not belonging to the Catholic or Orthodox traditions

· noun: a. a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth b. a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

· Christian faith, denies the authority of the Pope, worship focused on the Bible

Here is the search result for “Protestantism” from the on-line, Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent.

Your thoughts?

 

[diggerdomer]

Father told me to be protestant is quite simple. To protest the teachings of the CC.

Oh, there are many who protest Catholic teachings. Simply protesting Catholic teachings is hardly sufficient to make one Christian.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi Amateur, What I mean is to protest is to be against. Like even if you and your wife disagree you may not really be protesting what she says, unless you really strongly disagree.

But the word PROTESTant did come from that word. That is how the Church did indeed get the word Protestant from Catholic.

When the reform. became about there were many or few teachings of the CC that were not accepted. And as we know the RCC will never change its teachings, and like a disagreement it could not be rectified.

And so if this was a very big disagreement for you and your wife, and you could not come to a agree to disagree place your marriage would become a divorce. Because you could not get pass this problem.

Thats kinda what happened to the Church. A disagreement could not be rectified and became a protest between 2 party’s and became a Protest. And unfortunately when this happens and there is no way to unite both partys they become separated.

Something that I always thought was pretty neat is, start with the newest Church today, and compare the difference to it and the CC. Then move on down the line. The older the Church the closest to Catholic it will be.

And something that will really blow your mind is compared to some of the so called Church’s today. The Protestatant Churchs that started from the reform. back then, and the CC are almost united today Its like we could almost overcome our differences and ban together today after seeing these new things that are happening.

The Catholic Church certainly does change teachings.

How about fasting on Fridays? Religious freedom? Ecumenism?

 

[rinnie]

Oh, there are many who protest Catholic teachings. Simply protesting Catholic teachings is hardly sufficient to make one Christian.

Huh? Who ever said protesting Catholic teaching’s makes one not Christian. I said protesting Catholic teaching makes one a protestant

 

[rinnie]

The Catholic Church certainly does change teachings.

How about fasting on Fridays? Religious freedom? Ecumenism?

And the RCC certainly has never changed one teaching. Please show me one, Just One If the RCC has even changed one teaching of the Church then that would mean that Jesus lied to us when he promised the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Again could you show me a teaching we have changed. Can’t wait to see it.

Next what in the world does Church disciplines have to do with the teahing’s of the Holy Spirit

Next what about fasting on Fridays? We still have to do it during lent as far as I know, When did it change? And even if the Pope did decide to change it when was it ever a Church teaching and not a Church discipline.

Whats about Religious freedom? You really got me there, When did the Catholic Church ever take away free will from anyone. Next when did we ever have Religious freedom to the point as doing our will instead of what God commanded us to do. It has always been in order to recieve communion we must follow the word of God, confess our sins. Etc. please explain this Religious freedom thing. We have always had free will to sin, but have always been taught to stay away from sin and obey Gods commandments

Next Ecumenism. When did the CC ever stop wanting Christian unity and want us to be separate Church’s. The Catholic Church has always taught which yes this indeed iis a teaching not a discipline that there is only ONE Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and the Pope has always wanted us to be one in unity. When did that change?

So you have really got me there, Please explain where for one thing the RCC ever changed One single teaching, and what in the world you mean by Religious freedom. And please understand there is a big difference between Church discipline and teachings. The Pope can change any discipline he chooses. That is his God given right as the leader of the RCC. But he can never changed the word of God, and never has.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

I agree that it is pretty neat. I rejoice in the efforts that are made toward reconciliation and, as a Lutheran, I pray that those efforts will bear fruit. I look forward to the day when we all can join together in celebration of the Holy Eucharist, preferably before we join together as members of the Church Triumphant.

Yes I believe it indeed will happen. I really think that the problem is not with your Church or my Church as much as it is with all of us and what we think the Church teachings really are.

I really believe that if you and I for instance could sit down sometimes and talk and I could really explain what my Church really teaches, and you sat down and showed what your Church really teaches we could get together and reunite them in a minute. But sometimes I think that the things that keep us apart are not really a big deal. I know I will get alot of hate PM’s for saying this, but I really believe this. I believe our common demonator is Christ and that could make it happen quite easily.

Because when push comes to shove we all really do believe the Main important things. And that is just what I have learned talking to many of your faith.

And I think the other thing is we all need to really learn what our own Church teaches and why. I think instead of arguing over who is right or wrong if someone asked be honestly why does your church do this or that, and I told them they would really be cool with it.

Like just for instance my Church displines. Like the one person wrote eating meat on Friday. Before that was every friday. But the reason was because back years ago when meat became plenty there was alot of waste of fish. So the Church said what can we do about this waste. So you know how it is a sin to waste sin. So the Church leader said lets make Friday a day of fast and lets give up meat once a week for God and it did 2 things. It helped with the abundance of fish at that time, and it also was a spiritual deed you did for God. So you took a common day problem and took care of it and made 2 goods out of it.

Personally my Dad never gave up fasting on Friday for his whole life, even when the fast was lifted and the ban of meat on regular Fridays was lifted. So to him it was a way of life and something he did in the name of God. And personally I believe that if we got into a problem today and say meat became to become harder to get and the Church asked us to cut down and fast for God and to pray more on that day, and give it up any Christian would be cool with that also. No only Catholic’s. But in those days there were only Catholic’s so thats why Protestants did not do it, because there were no protestants.

But I believe that if all Christians of all faiths asked this it would be cool. And we would do this fast for the Love of Christ.

 

[wanderingbaptis]

many Baptists (and i believe a few other denominations) consider themselves to be non-catholic and non-protestant. they believe that their way of worship pre-dates catholicism. they believe that their worship style and services and beliefs began during Christ’s lifetime and continued until today in a mostly-unchanged fashion. therefore, they don’t think there was ever a period of protest against the catholic church, considering they “were there first.”

 

[rinnie]

many Baptists (and i believe a few other denominations) consider themselves to be non-catholic and non-protestant. they believe that their way of worship pre-dates catholicism. they believe that their worship style and services and beliefs began during Christ’s lifetime and continued until today in a mostly-unchanged fashion. therefore, they don’t think there was ever a period of protest against the catholic church, considering they “were there first.”

You got me there wandering. I do not see how you can be neither. You either accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or you don’t.

No disrespect but this reminds me of the scripture of you are either hot or cold you cannot be lukewarm.

So you either are hot and accept all of the teachings of the Catholic Church or you don’t.

Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church. THere was only One Church in the beg. and it was the CHurch started by Jesus and taught by Peter and the Apostles. That was the Church that is still called the Catholic Church today. It was not until the ref. that the CC became separated and was no longer only One. It was then that the reform. divided the CC into the CC and the Protestant Church. That is when we became separated as brothers and sisters in Christ by our teachings.

And I cannot see how you guys can predate the teachings of Christ and his Church. This makes no sense to me. Do you deny then that Christ started the Church?

If so what do you do with the scripture that says the Church is the Pillar of all Truth?

 

[rinnie]

Also so do you guys say the the reform. never happened and Luther was never a Catholic Monk at one time, and never existed or what?

 

[diggerdomer]

Huh? Who ever said protesting Catholic teaching’s makes one not Christian. I said protesting Catholic teaching makes one a protestant

Well…for example…there are many Catholics who protest certain teachings of the Catholic Church. There are many atheists, agnostics, etc., who disagree with Catholic Church teachings.

Simply protesting Catholic teachings does not make one a Protestant. Protestants are Christians, so what would seem to make one a Protestant is faith in Jesus Christ as witnessed to e.g. by Baptism, Creed, etc.

 

[diggerdomer]

And the RCC certainly has never changed one teaching. Please show me one, Just One If the RCC has even changed one teaching of the Church then that would mean that Jesus lied to us when he promised the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Again could you show me a teaching we have changed. Can’t wait to see it.

Next what in the world does Church disciplines have to do with the teahing’s of the Holy Spirit

Next what about fasting on Fridays? We still have to do it during lent as far as I know, When did it change? And even if the Pope did decide to change it when was it ever a Church teaching and not a Church discipline.

Whats about Religious freedom? You really got me there, When did the Catholic Church ever take away free will from anyone. Next when did we ever have Religious freedom to the point as doing our will instead of what God commanded us to do. It has always been in order to recieve communion we must follow the word of God, confess our sins. Etc. please explain this Religious freedom thing. We have always had free will to sin, but have always been taught to stay away from sin and obey Gods commandments

Next Ecumenism. When did the CC ever stop wanting Christian unity and want us to be separate Church’s. The Catholic Church has always taught which yes this indeed iis a teaching not a discipline that there is only ONE Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and the Pope has always wanted us to be one in unity. When did that change?

So you have really got me there, Please explain where for one thing the RCC ever changed One single teaching, and what in the world you mean by Religious freedom. And please understand there is a big difference between Church discipline and teachings. The Pope can change any discipline he chooses. That is his God given right as the leader of the RCC. But he can never changed the word of God, and never has.

I doubt one example will satisfy you. But here goes.

St. Cyprian (Bishop) in the mid 3rd century: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The current Catholic Catechism para 846-848.

There is not that big a difference between Church discipline and teachings. They are all Church teachings. Some can change, others cannot. That’s my point.

 

[diggerdomer]

A

Next what about fasting on Fridays? We still have to do it during lent as far as I know, When did it change? And even if the Pope did decide to change it when was it ever a Church teaching and not a Church discipline…

Yes, during Lent, but only during Lent (and Good Friday). That is a huge change. Before Vatican II, Catholics were taught to fast on every Friday under penalty of mortal sin if they didn’t. All of a sudden…it changed. What was a mortal sin changed according to Catholic teaching.

 

[rinnie]

I doubt one example will satisfy you. But here goes.

St. Cyprian (Bishop) in the mid 3rd century: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The current Catholic Catechism para 846-848.

There is not that big a difference between Church discipline and teachings. They are all Church teachings. Some can change, others cannot. That’s my point.

Correct there IS no Salvation outside the Catholic Church where did that change?

There is a huge difference between Church teachings and Church disciplines. You are just ignorant to the faith of the RCC.

A Church Dogma are t he Truths Revealed by Christ and are the infallible teachings of Christ.

A Church Doctrine can be debated until it is officially defined by the Magisterium of the Church. Some doctrines are essential to the faith others are not.

Church Discipline is a rule or regulation law set by the authority of the Church to guide us in our lives. Matters of DISCIPLINE are not INFALLIBLE. Do you see the big difference?

 

[rinnie]

Yes, during Lent, but only during Lent (and Good Friday). That is a huge change. Before Vatican II, Catholics were taught to fast on every Friday under penalty of mortal sin if they didn’t. All of a sudden…it changed. What was a mortal sin changed according to Catholic teaching.

No eating meat on Fridays was not a Dogma it was a discipline. The Church has the right and obligation to place restrictions on us as they see fit and which is a exercise or action for our benefit.

The reason meat was forbidden it was a disciplinary custom that the Church had the right to exercise. These things can change within a Diocese or even a particular Church.

Where was it ever a Dogma of the Faith?

 

[Contarini]

many Baptists (and i believe a few other denominations) consider themselves to be non-catholic and non-protestant. they believe that their way of worship pre-dates catholicism. they believe that their worship style and services and beliefs began during Christ’s lifetime and continued until today in a mostly-unchanged fashion. therefore, they don’t think there was ever a period of protest against the catholic church, considering they “were there first.”

Right, but this view is unsupported by the historical record, and Baptist historians dismiss it (see Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

· Any of several denominations of Christianity that separated from the Roman Catholic Church based on theological or political differences during the Reformation; Someone who is a member of such a denomination; A modern Christian denomination not belonging to the Catholic or Orthodox traditions

This is the definition I would favor, myself, with the qualification that it applies to all derivatives of these traditions (and I wouldn’t use the word “denomination” in the sixteenth-century context). That’s the problem you are up against with a lot of contemporary free-church Protestants. They have gone so far away from the original Protestant traditions (Lutheran, Reformed/Anglican, and I’d say Anabaptist as well) that they no longer recognize themselves as coming under the same umbrella. And given their primitivism (their misguided belief that they can somehow reconstruct the Christianity of the New Testament directly) they don’t see historical derivation as relevant. Some of them seriously claim to be descended from an unbroken chain of believers who think just like them, as wanderingbaptist noted.

Edwin

 

[gcnuss]

Now to be Protestant there is something in the Catholic faith that you do not accept. Which would mean protest. No disrespect to any Protestant faith and I am sure they will indeed agree with me, there is a teaching in the Catholic faith that they cannot accept and it makes us separated in brethren.
(snip)
So looking at it that way, would you not agree that a protestant is someone who protests a teaching or teaching’s of the CC?

Rinnie,

I know I’m way behind on this discussion, but I think there are probably Protestants who have virtually no knowledge of Catholic doctrine. One who is brought up within a Protestant tradition believes and accepts what they have been taught. There may be little or no awareness of why they are not Catholic. For them, there is no active rejection of Catholic doctrine – no protest by which they say the Catholic Church is wrong. What are they protesting? Nothing.

From my Lutheran perspective, I would encourage all Catholics to be faithful to what the Church teaches. That should be, for them, part of being Catholic. Even in those things that the Church teaches that I have problems with, I wouldn’t encourage a Catholic to go against the Church. In that sense, I do not protest.

If I were protesting, my focus would cease to be on what I am – a Christian, a baptized child of God, a believer in the Triune God – and would turn to what I am not, a member of the Catholic Church.

I don’t mean to say that there aren’t people who protest against the Catholic Church. You only need to visit of few of their websites to see real protest. But to say that anyone who does not “accept” (as opposed to actively rejecting) any Catholic doctrine is protesting is, I think, inaccurate.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I doubt one example will satisfy you. But here goes.

St. Cyprian (Bishop) in the mid 3rd century: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The current Catholic Catechism para 846-848.

There is not that big a difference between Church discipline and teachings. They are all Church teachings. Some can change, others cannot. That’s my point.

This confuses me. Are you saying that the current catechism teaches something other than Extra Eccelsiam nulla salus? Because that is not what those Catechism references state.

Yes, during Lent, but only during Lent (and Good Friday). That is a huge change. Before Vatican II, Catholics were taught to fast on every Friday under penalty of mortal sin if they didn’t. All of a sudden…it changed. What was a mortal sin changed according to Catholic teaching.

What was a mortal sin was not the act of eating meat, it was the disobedience of Church discipline. Disobedience was sinful, not meat. That fundamental fact remains true.

To the OP, a protestant is any person who opposes the teachings of the Apostolic faith (Catholic or Orthodox). A person raised in a protestant faith may not necessarily be protestant, due to their indoctrination never having included the truth, yet the faith itself remains protestant. Take the Baptists for instance. Despite their best efforts to stamp their feet and proclaim that they are not protestant, they are at almost every level in opposition to the one true faith, thus making them (as a faith group) protestant.

We as Catholics need to strive to show the love of Christ which would bring all men home to His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

FSC

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

I know I’m way behind on this discussion, but I think there are probably Protestants who have virtually no knowledge of Catholic doctrine. One who is brought up within a Protestant tradition believes and accepts what they have been taught. There may be little or no awareness of why they are not Catholic. For them, there is no active rejection of Catholic doctrine – no protest by which they say the Catholic Church is wrong. What are they protesting? Nothing.

From my Lutheran perspective, I would encourage all Catholics to be faithful to what the Church teaches. That should be, for them, part of being Catholic. Even in those things that the Church teaches that I have problems with, I wouldn’t encourage a Catholic to go against the Church. In that sense, I do not protest.

If I were protesting, my focus would cease to be on what I am – a Christian, a baptized child of God, a believer in the Triune God – and would turn to what I am not, a member of the Catholic Church.

I don’t mean to say that there aren’t people who protest against the Catholic Church. You only need to visit of few of their websites to see real protest. But to say that anyone who does not “accept” (as opposed to actively rejecting) any Catholic doctrine is protesting is, I think, inaccurate.

Hi, And thank-you for your reply. I understand what you are saying. When I say protests a teaching of the RCC I think People sometimes are seeing signs walking back and forth in front of the Church or something

But what I mean is that there are really 2 Religions. Catholic and Protestant. You are either a part of the Catholic Church or you are some other Religion. Anything out of the Catholic faith is considered to be Protestant.

Where someone protests a teaching of our faith it means that they do not agree with it, or cannot accept it that is why they are not part of it. Do you understand what I am saying?

But I do not mean that they openly protest what we are teaching or are even actually have a big problem with it, they just do not see it our way or accept what we teach.

But the word Protestant was formed when the first CHurch broke away from the Catholic Church. It came from the word protest. Do you see what I am saying?

To put it another way Protestant means other then Catholic.