Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

[Jimmy_B]

All you have to do really is go into the ‘Traditional Catholic’ forum and find a HUGE amount of arguing and debating going on BETWEEN CATHOLICS regarding their own Faith / Belief system.

Does this make the ones who say that Vatican II is unreliable and contains errors / is wrong, protestants - because they protest what the Catholic Church teaches? See HERE for an example…

It makes you wonder…

Hello Singinbeauty,

There exists a difference between members of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church itself. Members of the Catholic Church are fallible and the Catholic Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church, in regards to the issues of Faith and Moral’s, is infallible.

It is not permitted for Individual members of Catholic Church, to personally interpret the Bible, for example, in a way, which is inconsistent with Catholicism. Where, on them other hand, it is permitted in some other Christian denominations. In fact, it is encouraged in many other Christian denominations. This is an important distinction.

Peace

 

[Steadfast]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

Whats wrong with being called a “Protestant” if your are a “Protestant”? I don’t get it…

Peace

“Protestant” is actually a pretty technical term. I’d imagine that those who reject it reject it on the grounds that they eschew many of the details that define the idea.

Similarly, a catholic should be any Christian who accepts the classic trinitarian credal definitions. Out of courtesy though, in common parlance, we apply the word to those Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

If we wanted to be really technical, the only Protestants are the ecclesial descendants of those Lutherans and Reformed churches which protested the conclusions of the diet of Speyer.

By extension we apply it to any non-Catholic, non-Orthodox (another term with multiple nuances determined by context), generally Western trinitarian Christian descended ecclesially from those churches of the reformation which broke away from Rome.

Having said that, it’s just a word. If someone doesn’t want to be called a Protestant, you should probably oblige them. God knows we get into all kinds of hot water when we refer to you exclusively as ROMAN Catholic.

 

[FiremanFrank]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

Whats wrong with being called a “Protestant” if your are a “Protestant”? I don’t get it…

Peace

As an Eastern Catholic who attends a single’s group comprised almost solely non-denom’s (non-denominationals or “bible Christians”), I have experienced this often.

For the most part, they see ANY formal denomination as being run by the teachings of “men”, and not by God.

They would claim then, that “bible Christians” have existed from the time of Christ - therefore asserting the origins of their Christianity to neither Catholic OR Protestant denominations.

Hope that helped …

 

[KJK80]

Don’t forget the “organized religion” “slam”

 

[FiremanFrank]

Don’t forget the “organized religion” “slam”

Yup.

For the most part though, they’ve talked to me about “the teachings of men”.

Still, I get along with most of them pretty well …

 

[Jimmy_B]

Don’t forget the “organized religion” “slam”

I thought “slam” was a typo…guess not…

 

[Gara3987]

Yeah that didn’t read quite right, I did not mean that Scripture is a god. God is the Prime Authority, but I was speaking of those authorities we have other than God. I mean that as scripture is Gods word it is never incorrect (though naturally it can be interpreted incorrectly). No earthly authority can trump it.

Scripture
tradition
reason
experience

In that order… So tradition is not equal to scripture but it is still an authority.

As you can see it is not sola Scriptura it is prima scriptura.

Tradition is equal to Scripture:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [2Thess. 2, 14]

That is:

“Traditions”… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.

In the modern Bibles New American Standard, King James, etc. it is [2Thess. 2, 15]

If every single act of the Christ and the Apostles were to be written down, there would be volumes to the Bible and not a signal Bible which would most likely be even larger than the Encyclopedia.

 

[Schultzz]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

Whats wrong with being called a “Protestant” if your are a “Protestant”? I don’t get it…

Peace

Well with your definition in mind then subsequent divisions of religious orders such as Franciscans must also be Protestant, e.g. Conventuals, Capuchins, EWTN Fransicans, etc. Could you be playing a game of semantics and not have read the rules of the game?

 

[Contarini]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

As the authors of such threads usually do, you forget about the Orthodox. (Also the Old Catholics.) “Protestant” does not mean “protesting aspects of Catholicism.” This has been done to death. It is a historical term originally applied to certain German princes who implemented the ideas of Luther and other theologians in their territories (particularly in terms of liturgy) and protested against being told to reverse those changes. I entirely agree with you that it properly applies to all Christians whose heritage goes back to those who broke with Rome at the time of the Reformation.

And here’s the problem: Many Protestants (by this definition), particularly in America, do not define their identity in terms of the Reformation. They come from later variants of Protestantism, and take one of three positions (or some combination):

1. They see their tradition as constituting something so different from historic Protestantism as to make the term “Protestant” meaningless. This is the most historically respectable reason for rejecting the term. Many Pentecostals and scholars of Pentecostalism, for instance, would argue that Pentecostalism breaks so radically with traditional Protestantism that it constitutes a “fourth stream” of Christian tradition. (The Pentecostal view that miracles still exist today, for instance, was the Catholic position in the Reformation era and was rejected by the Protestants. Admittedly it’s more complicated than that–Pentecostals do inherit many Protestant ideas and practices, and many other Protestants have adopted aspects of Pentecostalism.) Anabaptists make a similar claim, although of course their heritage does go back to the 16th century. From the beginning, they were rejected (and persecuted) by “mainstream” Protestants and were told that in certain respects (mostly soteriology) their theology was unfaithful to the basic principles of the Reformation and was a “new monkery.” So arguably they have always been something distinctly different. And we could go on and on. . . .
2. They don’t care much about history at all and don’t define themselves historically. This is true of many “nondenominational” Protestants today, and even of many who belong to historic denominations. I think this position is wrongheaded, but of course it’s not the sort of thing one can “prove” or “disprove” (though one can make a strong argument that it puts most of the basic teachings of Christianity up for grabs).
3. Most problematically, they believe that their teachings are a simple reproduction of New Testament Christianity, or even (in the case of Landmark Baptists and some Anabaptists) have a chain of historical continuity going back to the New Testament.

Anglicans have a fourth reason–though perhaps you will see it as just a variant of position 3. Most of us do not define our identity in terms of the Reformation, because we stress our continuity with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. Certainly in some forms this does become a version of position 3. But simply as a statement of how we define ourselves, it’s more like position 2–it isn’t the sort of thing that can be proved or refuted. And there’s also an aspect of position 1–our beliefs and practices are clearly different in many respects from those of classical Protestantism, though this dates far more to post-Reformation (and in many cases 19th-century) developments than most Anglicans acknowledge.

For the record, I have no problem at all being called a Protestant.

Edwin

 

[Jimmy_B]

Well with your definition in mind then subsequent divisions of religious orders such as Franciscans must also be Protestant, e.g. Conventuals, Capuchins, EWTN Fransicans, etc. Could you be playing a game of semantics and not have read the rules of the game?

Hello Schultzz,

" Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a Christian sect or denomination…"

There is that better?

I like EWTN, but EWTN is not the Roman Catholic Church nor do they claim to be. Additionally, Catholic Orders, like the Franciscans are not Catholic “denominations”, they are part of the Roman Catholic Church and as a “Catholic” yourself, you already new this…Right?

Peace

 

[Jimmy_B]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

Whats wrong with being called a “Protestant” if your are a “Protestant”? I don’t get it…

Peace

 

[happygal]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

Whats wrong with being called a “Protestant” if your are a “Protestant”? I don’t get it…

Peace

I never bother how others label me “Protestant” just a word to me…

 

[gcnuss]

Why do so many non-Catholic Christian “Protestants” - Reject the term “Protestant”?

Any non-Catholic Christian belonging to a sect or denomination descending from those that seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and rejected aspects of Catholicism at the time of the Reformation (and today)…is by definition – “Protestant”.

If you are a Christian and not a Catholic, it is because you are, or your denomination is - “protesting” aspects of Catholicism; you are a “Protestant”.

Whats wrong with being called a “Protestant” if your are a “Protestant”? I don’t get it…

Peace

Jimmy,

While I think it may have been addressed to some extent above, the term “Protestant” was applied to those who protested a political decision of the 1529 Diet of Speyer. A previous meeting of the Diet in 1526 had proclaimed that areas ruled by Lutheran princes could remain Lutheran. The 1529 Diet rescinded that decision and said that all jurisdictions within the empire should be Catholic. The protest was against that political action.

For what it’s worth I am not, and have never been, engaged in protesting any decision of the Diet of Speyer. Since the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists, the whole question is moot.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy,

While I think it may have been addressed to some extent above, the term “Protestant” was applied to those who protested a political decision of the 1529 Diet of Speyer. A previous meeting of the Diet in 1526 had proclaimed that areas ruled by Lutheran princes could remain Lutheran. The 1529 Diet rescinded that decision and said that all jurisdictions within the empire should be Catholic. The protest was against that political action.

For what it’s worth I am not, and have never been, engaged in protesting any decision of the Diet of Speyer. Since the Holy Roman Empire no longer exists, the whole question is moot.

Hello gcnussIf,

Thank you for your post. I have read about the different aspects and “causes” of Reformation and the “Protestant movement” and if you Google, “Protestant Church”, you will find 1.6 million reasons why you are incorrect. Protestantism was not simply, as you put it, a protest against a “political action” it was the "protesting of the Roman Catholic Church”, for starters you left out, Martin Lurther and his 95 Thesis, his “problem” was not with a “political action”, it was with the Roman Catholic Church.

Additionally, I believe that the denomination, which is actually named “the Protestant Church” might disagree with you.

Peace

 

[gcnuss]

Hello gcnussIf,

Thank you for your post. I have read about the different aspects and “causes” of Reformation and the “Protestant movement” and if you Google, “Protestant Church”, you will find 1.6 million reasons why you are incorrect. Protestantism was not simply, as you put it, a protest against a “political action” it was the "protesting of the Roman Catholic Church”, for starters you left out, Martin Lurther and his 95 Thesis, his “problem” was not with a “political action”, it was with the Roman Catholic Church.

Additionally, I believe that the denomination, which is actually named “the Protestant Church” might disagree with you.

Peace

Jimmy,

Thanks for your reply.

I was only trying to show that the origin of “protestant” came out of the response to the act of the Diet of Speyer. Certainly, after its application to those who protested that action, the word was applied much more broadly – encompassing all other reformers as well.

As far as I am concerned, I am not a “Protestant” inasmuch as I do not protest against the Catholic Church. I may not accept every bit of Catholic dogma or doctrine but I do not “protest” against it.

I will take issue with your characterization of Luther’s 95 Theses as a protest. Luther wrote them as an invitation to debate, a normal academic practice in that time. There was no intention on his part, as he wrote the 95 Theses, to separate from the Church. He was seeking to clarify the Church’s teachings about indulgences. Of course, history shows that things went far beyond his original intent.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy,

I will take issue with your characterization of Luther’s 95 Theses as a protest. Luther wrote them as an invitation to debate, a normal academic practice in that time. There was no intention on his part, as he wrote the 95 Theses, to separate from the Church. He was seeking to clarify the Church’s teachings about indulgences. Of course, history shows that things went far beyond his original intent.

Hello again gcnuss,

"an invitation to debate"

That’s a new one…

So… the next time I want to “invite someone to a debate”, I will make sure to bring a hammer and a nail …So that I can nail my "Points’ to their front door…

Luther was protesting… The 95 Thesis wasn’t the only thing that he wrote but you knew that. Christians today, who are descendants of the “first protesters”, are still protesting. They are protesting or rejecting Catholic beliefs, which are early Christian beliefs. They are “protesting” in their beliefs and by their actions.

Christians today didn’t create a new religion; they made changes to an old one, the Catholic Church, by rejecting Catholicism and protesting aspects of Catholicism.

If you want, I will petition the rest of the world to change the name to, “Rejecters of Catholicism” but that doesn’t have the same ring to it…

We need to figure something out, because I can’t possible remember all of the different names of every denomination. I think I’ll stick with, non-Catholic “Protestants” Christian, or simply “Protestant”; it’s much easier to type…

I hope this helps…

 

[Steadfast]

Jimmy,

You really should read a reliable history of the period.

I recommend Ozment and/or MacCulloch

In 1517 Luther was a Catholic priest and an academic in good standing with every church authority.

Reputable Catholic scholars have determined that there is nothing in the 95 theses which controverted the Catholic faith.

If you know differently, please share your information with us.

It is true that later he clearly went beyond them into outright heresy (by Catholic standards) but at this time he was just an academic asking for debate on the issue of indulgences.

Nothing more.

 

[gcnuss]

That’s a new one…

So… the next time I want to “invite someone to a debate”, I will make sure to bring a hammer and a nail …So that I can nail my "Points’ to their front door…

Jimmy,

Here’s the introduction to the 95 Theses:

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

So, yes, it was an invitation to debate. In the setting of Wittenberg, the doors of the Castle Church served as something of a public bulletin board. Most everyone who might be interested in debating the propositions Luther put forth would have seen them there.

 

[catholiconce]

I wasn’t aware they did… Who does reject the term Protestant? I guess I missed this somewhere…

I dislike the word Protestant. The word Protestant is a label that “SOME’ Roman Catholic use to belittle those who believe in Jesus Christ as they do but see things from a differnt point of view. Protestant is one who protests. In a way Catholics can be called Protestants because they Protest others as well. Yes Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdome to Peter. However is every action done by those who followed Peter of Christ. Did Jesus tell Julius III in 1550 -1555 to kill hundreds on Protestants in England? Did Jesus tell the catholic church to SELL indulgences so people could keep themselves and ancestors out of purgatory; Then use that money to build a basilica in Peters name ? No NO and No. The RCC can do anything they wish all they have to do is write the dogma to do it and call those who disagree Heritics.” If you disagree we will burn you at the stake". It never stops. I spent the first 43 years of my life as a Roman Catholic I drew the line when I was taught to think of non Catholics as less than human. Read some of the remarks on this medium and just look at the way Roman Catholics treat their brothers and Sisters in Christ on this web site and on these Threads. The Word (your word not mine))Protestant is used in a degrading manner. Protestant are not Protesting Jesus they are protesting the missguided leaders of the RCC If you take a look around today it is still evident that Catholic leaders(priests) are abusing their postions and the very same people they are leading ;is that what jesus would have done ? EWTN Radio’s own news claims to have 5000 of 4200 catholic priest convicted of child molestion. That is a huge number. Those are not my statistics they are EWTN’S.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hello, here is my response to the last three posts -

Post # 77 – Protestant partial truths, but mostly Protestant “spin”. The “Protestant Movement” cannot be summed-up in four “protestant” sentences…Although, in your last sentence, where you wrote – “It is true that later he clearly went beyond them into outright heresy…” is correct , he did get much worse as he went along…he became even more “protestant” .

Post # 78 – I have read the 95 Thesis but thank you and it was not an “invitation”.

Post # 79 – How is the word “Protestant”. “belittling” to anyone who rejects Catholicism and based on the rest of your comment here, which is clearly anti-Catholic, “Protestantism” would be a kind way to describe your last post.

Thanks to all, for participating…

Peace