What does it mean to be Protestant?

[rinnie]

FidesSpesCarita;6798458:

I do not believe the Church I belong to ever broke away from any “original church”. There is only One Church, One Body of Christ, One Spiritual Home, One God, One People. I do not believe that the Catholic church, regardless of what it claims, is that One Church.

Fair enough. Do you feel that the CC broke away from the Quaker Church? If there is no such thing forgive me, It shows my ignorance:blush:

 

[Garyjohn2]

Protestant is from the root work “protest”.
Think “contestant”…one who contests. “Protestant”…one who protests.

They protest against and reject the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ and his apostles founded (at least that’s how they started, and where the name came from).

 

[Publisher]

Publisher;6800048:

Fair enough. Do you feel that the CC broke away from the Quaker Church? If there is no such thing forgive me, It shows my ignorance:blush:

No, the Catholic church certainly is one of the oldest organizations formed…but the One Church is made of all who have put their faith in Christ. The Orrthodox/Catholic church is a man made organization formed in the first few centuries to bring those congregations which espoused similar beliefs under a single organizational umbrella…the group which eventually aligned itself with the Roman government. Once this group gained popularity and social status, all other competing groups were systematically suppressed.

We know that “heretics” worshipped right along side the “proto-orthodox/catholic” believers. The “proto-orthodox/catholic” believers developed their heirarchal system of “deacons, priest, bishops” and eventually decreed all other competing groups of Christians were “heretics”.

In some locations, such as Asia Minor and portions of Africa, only knew the “heretical” brand of Christianity…“heretical” groups survived for centuries isolated from “orthodoxy” until the fourth and fifth centuries.

The “proto-orthodox/catholics” were willing to do things to consolidate their beliefs and organization through political means. All other Christian traditions were eventually supressed through government edicts and law…eventually the “Orthodox/Catholic” church became the dominant version of Christianity.

I understand the whole idea of “apostolic succession”…but the “heretics” claimed also to have received their teaching from the apostles handed down through their teachers. I believe Valentinus received his teachings from Thedus who received his teachings directly from Paul…so the “proto-orthodox/catholic” claim of apostolic succession was not unique.

Early Christianity was more diverse than it is today. Most groups who formed in the west reflect the “proto-orthodox/catholic” origins.

 

[JonNC]

Protestant is from the root work “protest”.
Think “contestant”…one who contests. “Protestant”…one who protests.

They protest against and reject the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ and his apostles founded (at least that’s how they started, and where the name came from).

No, that isn’t where the name came from. See post #11.
Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Ok.
In all of my experiences on the internet, and I started with forums and so forth about 15 years ago, it was always considered…many negative words come to mind…to interact in this manner for someone who could not answer or defend themselves.
But maybe things have changed. Its funny but on atheist forums it would be considered being a jerk but on a Catholic forum its ok…oh well. Life goes on…for now.

Perhaps you could appeal to the Mods if you feel the post was disrespectful.

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, there’s a difference between the first statement “could have” and the second “believes it to contain.” You need to decide which of these you are defending.

As the agnostic poster believes the Resurrection was a lie, I will choose to defend the latter. Clearly he believes that the Scriptures contain lies.

And, since there are no external sources which document the cleansing of the Temple (haven’t looked at Meier’s criteria yet) it is curious how the agnostic poster accepts the truth of that particular unverified incident–as it supported the particular argument he was profferin-- yet disbelieves the documentation of the Resurrection of Christ.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

FidesSpesCarita;6798458:

I do not believe the Church I belong to ever broke away from any “original church”. There is only One Church, One Body of Christ, One Spiritual Home, One God, One People. I do not believe that the Catholic church, regardless of what it claims, is that One Church.

There is only one Church. It still exists today in the form of the Catholic Church. Im confused how that is not obvious. Peter, Primacy of Peter, succession of Bishops, Primace of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI. Yes, thats far too brief, but thats the gist of it.

Anyone who espouses anything other than the original, Catholic, Church is in any/all senses protesting against it. If I espouse a constitution other than that in place in the US (since I live there) then I am protesting against that which already is in place. What other ways to look at this are there?

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

No, that isn’t where the name came from. See post #11.
Jon

For the record, there is a BIG difference between where a term originated and its common use… Case in point is the B-word.

FSC

 

[JonNC]

For the record, there is a BIG difference between where a term originated and its common use… Case in point is the B-word.
FSC

FSC,
I agree with you. I was simply pointing out that GaryJohn2 was mistaken as to “where the name came from”. He said: (at least that’s how they started, and where the name came from), which is incorrect. In fact, in post #11, I mentioned the common, modern usage.
I understand totally that, in common usage, the term is loosely applied to all western non-Catholic Christians. The problem with the term is

1. it implies that all Protestant communions come from the same source, and were one Church at its start, and are now splintered from that origin. That is incorrect, unless you are meaning that all came from the Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
2. it implies there is (or was from the start) a single Protestant doctrine, which is also not true. For example:
   not all western non-Catholic Christians use the practice of sola scriptura. Some use solo scriptura, and some use Tradition and reason along with scripture.

There is only one Church. It still exists today in the form of the Catholic Church. Im confused how that is not obvious. Peter, Primacy of Peter, succession of Bishops, Primace of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI. Yes, thats far too brief, but thats the gist of it.

It isn’t obvious, not simply because Protestants don’t recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility when speaking on faith and morals ex cathedra - but more because most other Churches that are in apostolic succession don’t recognize it - Orthodoxy, Old Catholics, etc.
It also isn’t obvious in the early councils, at least not such that these other communions, who are in Apostolic Succession and hold to Sacred Tradition have been convinced of it.

Jon

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

FSC,
I agree with you. I was simply pointing out that GaryJohn2 was mistaken as to “where the name came from”. He said: (at least that’s how they started, and where the name came from), which is incorrect. In fact, in post #11, I mentioned the common, modern usage.
I understand totally that, in common usage, the term is loosely applied to all western non-Catholic Christians. The problem with the term is

1. it implies that all Protestant communions come from the same source, and were one Church at its start, and are now splintered from that origin. That is incorrect, unless you are meaning that all came from the Catholic Church - those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
2. it implies there is (or was from the start) a single Protestant doctrine, which is also not true. For example:
   not all western non-Catholic Christians use the practice of sola scriptura. Some use solo scriptura, and some use Tradition and reason along with scripture.

1. Yes, I mean that all arose out of the Catholic Church. The “reformers” arose from within the Church, decided not to be obedient to the authority given to Peter, and broke away. This invalidated their communion with the See of Peter and (for some) invalidated the what sacraments they maintained after their wholesale re-writing of Sacred Tradition. From the various “reformers” came all the other various forms of Christianity which exist today.

I have an incredible amount of respect for the Lutheran and Anglican communions, since they have the honesty to admit that they broke away from the Catholic Church and give their reasons. They also admit that they follow manmade traditions (the Lutheran Confessions for instance) which so many denom’s refuse to acknowledge.

1. All “protestant” denominations arose from relatively few initial reformers. Just as all “Apostolic” churches arose out of 12 men, so all “protestant” churches arose out of just a few men.

It isn’t obvious, not simply because Protestants don’t recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility when speaking on faith and morals ex cathedra - but more because most other Churches that are in apostolic succession don’t recognize it - Orthodoxy, Old Catholics, etc.

Primacy of Peter = Biblical fact, acknowledged by all Apostolic Churches

Universal jurisdiction = Biblical Fact, acknowledged by all Apostolic Churches.

The issue that remains with the apostolic churches is not Petrine Primacy, it is who is the valid successor of Peter. It is the most annoying type of disagreement, we agree on almost all points except one major point. Sadly, people have broken away rather than being obedient to the seat of Peter as Jesus told his disciples to be obedient to the Chair of Moses.

The issue of papal infallibility is a thing which was not broadly understood until recently, but which has been implicitly relied upon each time the Bishop of Rome was consulted on matters of Faith and Morals.

It also isn’t obvious in the early councils, at least not such that these other communions, who are in Apostolic Succession and hold to Sacred Tradition have been convinced of it.

Jon

I know of no apostolic Churches which deny the primacy of Peter, the necessity of Apostolic origin for valid sacraments, or universal jurisdiction of the Pope (or Patriarch). Again, the disagreement comes down to which is the VALID leader of Christs Church on earth.

If the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church are consulted the understanding of the Early Church’s stance on these matters becomes clear and invariably agrees with what is taught by the Orthodox and Apostolic Churches.

The issue of Protestantism arises from those Churches which have separated themselves from apostolic succession and decided that they no longer had to teach those things which were taught by Christ and the Apostles (The True Presence of Christ, Holy Orders, etc.). I do not particularly like the term “protestant” but lacking a better word, it will continue to be used.

FSC

 

[Contarini]

As the agnostic poster believes the Resurrection was a lie, I will choose to defend the latter. Clearly he believes that the Scriptures contain lies.

And, since there are no external sources which document the cleansing of the Temple (haven’t looked at Meier’s criteria yet) it is curious how the agnostic poster accepts the truth of that particular unverified incident–as it supported the particular argument he was profferin-- yet disbelieves the documentation of the Resurrection of Christ.

Meier discusses the Cleansing of the Temple specifically on p. 133 of the source I cited (it’s an anthology with selections from various scholarly works).

Of course one can’t simply ignore the miraculous factor when discussing historical evidence. If one doesn’t start from an inclination to think that a certain sort of thing happens, one will require more evidence for it.

In short, I can’t see anything remotely odd about someone believing in the Cleansing of the Temple and not in the Resurrection.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=FidesSpesCarita;6803421]1) Yes, I mean that all arose out of the Catholic Church. The “reformers” arose from within the Church, decided not to be obedient to the authority given to Peter, and broke away. This invalidated their communion with the See of Peter and (for some) invalidated the what sacraments they maintained after their wholesale re-writing of Sacred Tradition. From the various “reformers” came all the other various forms of Christianity which exist today.

I think you reperesent here, though polemically, the Catholic view.

I have an incredible amount of respect for the Lutheran and Anglican communions, since they have the honesty to admit that they broke away from the Catholic Church and give their reasons. They also admit that they follow manmade traditions (the Lutheran Confessions for instance) which so many denom’s refuse to acknowledge.

Perhaps you could have an incredible amount of respect for the fact that, of all the western non-Catholic communions, these two have been the most open to ecumenism with Rome. And, at least in our confessional statements, a continued desire for the unity of the Church Catholic.

1. All “protestant” denominations arose from relatively few initial reformers. Just as all “Apostolic” churches arose out of 12 men, so all “protestant” churches arose out of just a few men.

Of course, Lutherans would say that through our roots in the Catholic Church, that shared history of 1500 years, places our roots firmly in the Apostles, as well.

Primacy of Peter = Biblical fact, acknowledged by all Apostolic Churches

Universal jurisdiction = Biblical Fact, acknowledged by all Apostolic Churches.

Depends on your definition of universal jurisdiction.

The issue that remains with the apostolic churches is not Petrine Primacy, it is who is the valid successor of Peter. It is the most annoying type of disagreement, we agree on almost all points except one major point. Sadly, people have broken away rather than being obedient to the seat of Peter as Jesus told his disciples to be obedient to the Chair of Moses.

The issue of papal infallibility is a thing which was not broadly understood until recently, but which has been implicitly relied upon each time the Bishop of Rome was consulted on matters of Faith and Morals.

Consulted. Absolutely. But I think the way you express this “obedient to the seat of Peter” would probably raise the hair on the back of the neck of most Orthodox.

I know of no apostolic Churches which deny the primacy of Peter, the necessity of Apostolic origin for valid sacraments, or universal jurisdiction of the Pope (or Patriarch). Again, the disagreement comes down to which is the VALID leader of Christs Church on earth.

If the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church are consulted the understanding of the Early Church’s stance on these matters becomes clear and invariably agrees with what is taught by the Orthodox and Apostolic Churches.

The following doesn’t sound exactly like the way you are portraying it.
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

The issue of Protestantism arises from those Churches which have separated themselves from apostolic succession and decided that they no longer had to teach those things which were taught by Christ and the Apostles (The True Presence of Christ, Holy Orders, etc.).

Of course, you know that both Anglicans and Lutherans teach both of these.

I do not particularly like the term “protestant” but lacking a better word, it will continue to be used.

I agree. I simply wanted GaryJohn2 to know that “Protestant” did not initially mean “Protesting the Catholic Church”.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

In short, I can’t see anything remotely odd about someone believing in the Cleansing of the Temple and not in the Resurrection.

Edwin

I suppose I can see your point, given that you have researched this.

However, I doubt that the agnostic poster, who made other claims about Jesus (i.e. “Jesus was a rebel” and “Jesus reviled hypocrisy” and “Jesus went among the lepers”) had studied any extra-biblical documentation to substantiate his statements. He believes that Jesus went among the lepers purely based upon the statements in the Bible, which he believes to contain mistakes, lies, exaggerations and interpolations.

Are there even any extra-biblical texts which document Jesus reviling hypocrisy?

 

[PRmerger]

Meier discusses the Cleansing of the Temple specifically on p. 133 of the source I cited (it’s an anthology with selections from various scholarly works).

Ok. So I read Meier’s discussion regarding the Cleansing of the Temple–I am confused as to what insight and light this reference provides to our discussion?

Essentially isn’t he saying that “multiple attestations” are a good indicator of the historicity of a particular event or saying in Scripture, but that it’s not the only criterion? And, specifically, in the case of the Cleansing he says that one could substantiate it because of “cross-references” of the prophecies regarding the destruction of the Temple, and the fact that it’s in more than one Gospel.

So how does one determine that the Cleansing of the Temple was an actual event but that the Resurrection could be a lie? Using Meier’s criteria the Resurrection ought to be considered a historic event as well. There’s multiple prophecies about the Resurrection and it’s in more than one Gospel, correct?

 

[Jimmy_B]

For the record, there is a BIG difference between where a term originated and its common use… Case in point is the B-word.

FSC

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

Don’t know why I haven’t asked before but what does Papal Infallibility mean?

Also, to the person who originally started this thread: is there anything in particular you are looking for is there something that prompted your question?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Don’t know why I haven’t asked before but what does Papal Infallibility mean?

Also, to the person who originally started this thread: is there anything in particular you are looking for is there something that prompted your question?

Q. Don’t know why I haven’t asked before but what does Papal Infallibility mean?

---

A. Infallibility
**
"…that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

(More Here, at the on-line, New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia)

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Infallibility

**889 **In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

**890 **The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

**891 **“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

**2035 **The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This **infallibility **extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

**2051 **The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

---

Q. Also, to the person who originally started this thread: is there anything in particular you are looking for is there something that prompted your question?

A. That would be me and I was prompted by comments made here at CAF, on other threads, by people who obviously have Protestant beliefs and belong to Protestant denomination’s and for some unknown reason, deny being Protestant.

 

[Australis]

Well for me I was born into it.

Concerns repeatedly cropping up amongst protestants (about Catholics) are:

1. “works based” v’s “faith alone” salvation
2. Beliefs about Mary.
3. Praying to the saints.
4. Beliefs about the Pope’s standing with God.

Protestants provide an alternative.

 

[larkin31]

it means to be in the minority at CA

 

[OldChurch40]

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?

For myself an ex-Catholic, to be Protestant is to protest the things that have tainted and corrupted Christ’s Church over the centuries and to have separated myself from worshipping with those in a church that refuse to recognize this fact.