What is the proper definiton of the word 'Protestant'?

[Esdra]

But the E.O. are not in communion with Rome.

That was actually also my point!
If you define Protestant, “A Church which isn’t in communion with Rome”, then also the EO and OO Churches are Protestant…

 

[jnpl1185]

I personally cannot stand the word. It ultimately means nothing and is historically a slur–you cannot talk about what “Protestants” believe, because there is relatively little doctrinal or ecumenical unity among “protestants.” On top of that, many (I would even venture to say most) Anglicans and Lutherans consider themselves Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. That is, they identify at least with the early church and see themselves as a separate rite within the body of Christ, just as there is Latin Rite, Eastern Rites, and so forth.

 

[Esdra]

I personally cannot stand the word. It ultimately means nothing and is historically a slur–you cannot talk about what “Protestants” believe, because there is relatively little doctrinal or ecumenical unity among “protestants.” On top of that, many (I would even venture to say most) Anglicans and Lutherans consider themselves Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. That is, they identify at least with the early church and see themselves as a separate rite within the body of Christ, just as there is Latin Rite, Eastern Rites, and so forth.

Not all Anglicans and Lutherans see themselves as Catholic…
There are High Church and Low Church Anglicans.
And there is the ELCA which is very often united with the Reformed (theologically seen their counterpart), as well as other main-stream Protestant Churches.
And there are the LCMS which consider themselves as Evangelical Catholics (as you do).

However, I don’t think both groups (LCMS and High Church Catholic Anglicans) are the majority of the Lutherans as well as the Anglicans.

Did you know that at Luther’s times the term Protestant was only used for the Lutherans (and later on for the Reformed Church) by the RCC, and actually still is quite often in the Catholic dominated countries in Europe, as all the other Protestant denominations are fairly unknown?

But I agree: the term Protestant means nothing. One can’t talk about what “Protestants” believe as they have completely differend theologies and doctrines.
If one talks about Protestants, one should actually specify which particular denomination he refers to.

 

[jnpl1185]

Point taken–the individual ELCA and LCMS pastors I know identify Lutherans as “reformed Catholics” and so do many of the SELK people in Germany whereas the Ev. Luth. people in Germany tend to be more like the ELCA as they were merged in the 1800s with the Reform churches by the state. Certainly most Scandinavian Lutheranism identifies with the High Church movement, but I would not know how they identify themselves.

One cannot speak for everyone, but there certainly seems to be a tendency in confessional Lutheranism to identify more with the most “historical” groups of Christianity than anything else we might call “Protestant”. My Pastor growing up always spoke of Lutheranism as being inbetween Roman Catholicism and “Protestantism”–but he always made sure we knew that we were not “Protestants.”

Best!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I personally cannot stand the word. It ultimately means nothing and is historically a slur–you cannot talk about what “Protestants” believe, because there is relatively little doctrinal or ecumenical unity among “protestants.” On top of that, many (I would even venture to say most) Anglicans and Lutherans consider themselves Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. That is, they identify at least with the early church and see themselves as a separate rite within the body of Christ, just as there is Latin Rite, Eastern Rites, and so forth.

A Roman Catholic is one who belongs to the Roman Rite. There are many other Rites within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Byzantine, Ukranian, Greek, etc., whose members do not appreciate being called “Roman.” THE NAME OF THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC. “Roman” was added by Anglicans in the 16th century and was originally perjorative.

I don’t wish to offend you, but the signature Protestant beliefs of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide originated in the 16th century and are not found in early Christianity. Those who belong to any Rite of the Catholic Church are united under the leadership of the successor of Peter, the Pope, and profess the same Catholic faith.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

A Roman Catholic is one who belongs to the Roman Rite. There are many other Rites within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Byzantine, Ukranian, Greek, etc., whose members do not appreciate being called “Roman.” THE NAME OF THE CHURCH IS CATHOLIC. “Roman” was added by Anglicans in the 16th century and was originally perjorative.

I don’t wish to offend you, but the signature Protestant beliefs of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide originated in the 16th century and are not found in early Christianity. Those who belong to any Rite of the Catholic Church are united under the leadership of the successor of Peter, the Pope, and profess the same Catholic faith.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant

Excellent summary, but remember to distinguish between the Catholic Church’s rites (Roman, Byzantine, Chaldean, Alexandrian, etc) and her autonomous churches (of which there are twenty-two in addition to the Latin Church, including the Coptic Catholic Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Romanian Church United with Rome, the Maronite Syriac Church of Antioch, etc.).

I point this out only because “Ukrainian” and “Greek” are not separate rites like the Byzantine Rite, but rather autonomous churches in communion with the pope which happen to use the Byzantine Rite.

But you make a great point. Often times non-Catholics try to come up with other names for our church that are more palatable for them - i.e. the “Church of Rome,” etc.

But these terms almost always fail, because they inherently exclude the eastern Catholic churches.

 

[guanophore]

I personally cannot stand the word. It ultimately means nothing

How can you say this? You may not like any implications of the term, but it says plenty! Besides, people don’t abhor that which “means nothing”. You can’t stand it exactly BECAUSE of what it means to you!

is historically a slur--you

NOt sure why you say this. I think if you look at the Latin foundation of the word, you will find that it is actually a compliment.

pro·test (pr-tst, pr-, prtst)
v. pro·test·ed, pro·test·ing, pro·tests
v.tr.

1. To object to, especially in a formal statement. See Synonyms at object.
2. To promise or affirm with earnest solemnity: “He continually protested his profound respect” (Frank Norris).
3. Law To declare (a bill) dishonored or refused.
   **4. Archaic To proclaim or make known: “unrough youths that even now/Protest their first of manhood” (Shakespeare).**v.intr.
4. To express strong objection.
5. To make an earnest avowal or affirmation.
   n. (prtst)
6. A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned person, group, or organization.
7. An individual or collective gesture or display of disapproval.
8. Law
   a. A formal statement drawn up by a notary for a creditor declaring that the debtor has refused to accept or honor a bill.
   b. A formal declaration made by a taxpayer stating that the tax demanded is illegal or excessive and reserving the right to contest it.

The Reformers were anxious to “proclaim” that which they believed the CC was hiding in the Gospel. This was the main motivation of the pre-Reformation translators, also, such as Tyndale and Wycliffe.

I would think that a person would be proud of such a status.

 ...cannot talk about what "Protestants" believe, because there is relatively little doctrinal or ecumenical unity among "protestants."

That is not what the Protestants on CAF say. On the contrary, they say that there IS doctrinal unity, especially on “the essentials”, and that those things which are non shared are actually adiaphora.

I think that the majority of doctrines, especially among Lutherans and Anglicans are in unity with the Catholic faith.

I do see your point about the disunity, though, because those points where disagreement exists are serious enough to prevent the unity that Jesus intended. It is this fruit that Catholics see as coming from the Sola Scriptura tree, and make us think it is a bad root.

Besides, all Protestants agree on the one most important aspect of Protestantism, that being that the CC is wrong, apostate, fallen from grace, wandered from the truth, etc. etc.

On top of that, many (I would even venture to say most) Anglicans and Lutherans consider themselves Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

Yes, this is what I was referring to above. However, just as with the doctrines that separate Lutherans and Anglicans from other ecclesial communities not in unity with the successor of Peter, the few areas where “protest” continues are critical, and maintain the division.

Anglicans and Lutherans also reject the Catholic doctrines in the Eastern Church (non–Roman Catholics), so it is not as if they are in communion with Catholicism when Rome is not in the picture, either. SS is also the main source of that separation.

That is, they identify at least with the early church and see themselves as a separate rite within the body of Christ, just as there is Latin Rite, Eastern Rites, and so forth.

The difference is that all the Rites (23 Catholic in all) share the same doctrines. This is not the case with Lutherans and Anglicans.

 

[guanophore]

But I agree: the term Protestant means nothing. One can’t talk about what “Protestants” believe as they have completely differend theologies and doctrines.
If one talks about Protestants, one should actually specify which particular denomination he refers to.

But the one thing they all have in common, rejecting Catholicism.

However, I think the majority of Modern American Evangelical Protestants have no idea about their spiritual ancestry in the Reformation, and only reject the Catholic faith because they believe it is a denomination that his a little off center. Some of them no very little, and care very little about the Catholic faith. It is not as though they have “rejected” Catholicm,as much as ignored it.

 

[guanophore]

My Pastor growing up always spoke of Lutheranism as being inbetween Roman Catholicism and “Protestantism”–but he always made sure we knew that we were not “Protestants.”

Best!

This is curious. I wonder what he means by that? It seems unlikely that he would not know the history of his own faith…

Luther was an original "protestare", and became even more so as his dispute with Rome progressed. He was willing to give his life for his protest, just as Tyndale and Wycliffe were.

 

[rinnie]

That was actually also my point!
If you define Protestant, “A Church which isn’t in communion with Rome”, then also the EO and OO Churches are Protestant…

You got me there Esdra. I always thought they all had to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic!

Guan Help me here!!:juggle:

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You got me there Esdra. I always thought they all had to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic!

They do have to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic. The eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are not Catholic, but neither are they Protestant…

 

[guanophore]

You got me there Esdra. I always thought they all had to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic!

Guan Help me here!!:juggle:

This is a complex condition resulting from separations related to politics, wars, economics and cultural myopathy. When the Roman Empire fell, the Eastern Church became separated from the West. Later, when some of the territories returned to the control of Christian rulers from the West, the Eastern Christians were reabsorbed with their Eastern Rites (those are the 22 non-Roman Catholic Rites in communion with the successor of Peter).

Some of the territories remained separated. Politics, language barriers and cultural misunderstandings resulted in the Great Schism of 1054 AD, at which time the Eastern Patriarchies and Rome lost unity with one another. This did not occur over changes in Doctrine, though. The reason the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian etc. Churches are not considered Protestants is that they share 98% of the docrine with Latin Catholics that we all received from our apostles. They only reject more recent doctrinal developments such as papal infallibility. The Catholic Church affirms that they have valid 7 sacraments, valid Holy Orders (priesthood) and valid Apostolic Succession. Efforts are currently underway to resolve any remaining disputes between what the Holy Father calls the “two lungs of the Church”.

At present, there are barriers to communion, but Latin Catholics may be dispensed so they can receive sacraments through the Orthodox Church. Hope that helps.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

the Eastern Christians were reabsorbed with their Eastern Rites (those are the 22 non-Roman Catholic Rites in communion with the successor of Peter).

Wait, that’s not actually true. There are 22 eastern Catholic autonomous churches, not rites. Many of them use the same rite. There are only 5 or 6 eastern rites in use in the Catholic Church today: Syriac, Chaldean, Alexandrian/Coptic, Armenian, and Byzantine (not sure if the Maronite rite is separate from the Syriac or not).

It’s an important difference, because - as you may already know, in which case I’m saying this for the benefit of others - many eastern Catholics resent the implication that their churches are merely *ritually *distinct, when in reality they are hierarchically distinct, too. Their autonomy from the day-to-day supervision of the Supreme Pontiff reflects the reality of the first millennium Church, when the pope exercised his supreme authority in a far more hands-off manner (more as a court of final appeals) than he does today.

The reason the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian etc. Churches are not considered Protestants is that they share 98% of the docrine with Latin Catholics that we all received from our apostles. The Catholic Church affirms that they have valid 7 sacraments, valid Holy Orders (priesthood) and valid Apostolic Succession.

Plus, there’s the fact that Protestantism is intrinsically connected with the historical breakaway movements that erupted in the west in the sixteenth century. Not only are the Orthodox churches - both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian - and the Assyrians not western, but they have literally nothing to do with those western breakaway movements. It would be the absolute height of ahistorical anachronistic absurdity to think of the Orthodox as “Protestant” in any way.

 

[guanophore]

Wait, that's not actually true. There are 22 eastern Catholic *autonomous churches*, not rites. Many of them use the same rite. There are only 5 or 6 eastern rites in use in the Catholic Church today: Syriac, Chaldean, Alexandrian/Coptic, Armenian, and Byzantine (not sure if the Maronite rite is separate from the Syriac or not).

What I am trying to say is that, in spite of many Latinizations that were forced upon the Eastern Catholics, they were allowed to retain their liturgical rites (not required to conform to the Latin Rite).

It’s an important difference, because - as you may already know, in which case I’m saying this for the benefit of others - many eastern Catholics resent the implication that their churches are merely *ritually *distinct, when in reality they are hierarchically distinct, too. Their autonomy from the day-to-day supervision of the Supreme Pontiff reflects the reality of the first millennium Church, when the pope exercised his supreme authority in a far more hands-off manner (more as a court of final appeals) than he does today.

Yes. We are in prayerful expectation that this condition will return to us. Such a condition would facilitate reunification with the Orthodox.

Plus, there's the fact that Protestantism is intrinsically connected with the historical breakaway movements that erupted in the west in the sixteenth century. Not only are the Orthodox churches - both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian - and the Assyrians not western, but they have *literally nothing* to do with those western breakaway movements. It would be the absolute height of ahistorical anachronistic absurdity to think of the Orthodox as "Protestant" in any way.

Indeed.

But, according to the myopic definition given above from a dictionary, they do qualify as such, since they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Another good reason not to use the dictionary to define theological terms.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

What I am trying to say is that, in spite of many Latinizations that were forced upon the Eastern Catholics, they were allowed to retain their liturgical rites (not required to conform to the Latin Rite).

Of course. Still, I think it’s important to communicate to others the distinction between a rite and an autonomous church. If we don’t, people might get the false impression that every bishop is a part of the exact same hierarchical unit, which could contribute further to ignorant conflations of the pope’s patriarchal and papal/universal authority. These conflations would then make clarifying when and how he should exercise his specifically papal/universal authority nigh impossible.

Yes. We are in prayerful expectation that this condition will return to us. Such a condition would facilitate reunification with the Orthodox.

Yes, that would be wonderful. I admit that we Catholics still have far to go, though - the criticisms of those who maintain that the Latin Church still functions in a kind of top-down way are not necessarily without merit. And of course the eastern Catholics who have similar frustrations about the way their own churches relate to Rome also deserve to be heard.

Another good reason not to use the dictionary to define theological terms.

Yeah, you know a theological discussion has gone south when someone whips out a standard dictionary.