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

[someotherguy]

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 don’t reject it. I just politely point out that it is inaccurate.

 

[Steadfast]

Jim,

There are several problems with your historical run down any one or two of which more than amply illustrate my point about your ignorance of the subject.

(What’s that you all are forever saying about being “deep in history”? Please, if this is what passes for depth among Catholics, then, well, enjoy your ghetto of willful denial.)

But let’s focus on one since you took the trouble to underline it:

Luther didn’t “remove” anything from the bible. He, like many scholars, had questions about the canonicity of the OT deuteros and several of the NT books as well. He expressed these doubts in several places and with vigor. Also, during the course of his life his opinion changed and mellowed significantly, especially about James, but all we ever hear is the “epistle of straw” remark from early in his career.

Get this straight though:

He never removed them.

Ever.

But let’s not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.

 

[Contarini]

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.

No, it’s a handy historical label to describe Christians whose traditions go back to the break with Rome in the 16th century. It is rejected by people who want to forget their history and claim (absurdly) that they are getting their doctrines straight from the New Testament, uninfluenced by the previous history of the Church. If you have been persuaded to believe that your understanding of the faith is not influenced by the history of the past 500 years (and of the 1500 years before that), you have been persuaded to believe a lie. The very rhetoric of “just following the Bible” has a history. You can’t escape history. Stop trying.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t reject it. I just politely point out that it is inaccurate.

How is it inaccurate?

How can you narrate the story of your particular faith tradition without including the Reformation?

Edwin

 

[Jimmy_B]

What do you think?

 

[Al_Masetti]

They want to ignore the first 1500 years of Christian history.

 

[LutheranDK]

hello KJK80,

Wait for…Wait for it…Wait for it…

You’ll see… if not on this thread… you will read it in another.

I just read a post, from one of our “Protestant” friends here (on another thread) who tried to say that Masons were not “Protestant”. :doh2:



Peace

As far as I know - masonry and Christianity are fundamentally at odds. Therefore one is either a mason, or a “protestant”. Not both.

But to turn the tables: Why do people from the Roman church object to the term “papist”.

 

[Enoch]

As far as I know - masonry and Christianity are fundamentally at odds. Therefore one is either a mason, or a “protestant”. Not both.

But to turn the tables: Why do people from the Roman church object to the term “papist”.

Don’t need to go any further than the dictionary. It is a derogatory slang term for Catholics. No different that the “N” word for African Americans or the “K” work for Jews.

**pa•pist ** (pā’pĭst) Pronunciation Key n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.

As opposed to “protestant” which is not defined as derogatory slang.

**Prot•es•tant ** (prŏt’ĭ-stənt) Pronunciation Key
n.
A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
One of the German princes and cities that supported the doctrines of Luther and protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans.

protestant also (prə-těs’tənt) One who makes a declaration or avowal.

 

[Steadfast]

The point is that if you are going to insist on a specifically connotative meaning; i.e. a “Protestant” is someone who “protests” something and you are going to then insist that the object of this protest is the RCC then you are imbuing the word with a purely connotative meaning that no definition will support.

It either means one of the princes who protested the diet of Speyer or it means a western Christian descended from the Reformation.

It does NOT mean a Christian who lives in a constant state of protest against the papacy.

As to why some Christians who are, really, Protestants deny the label, Edwin’s answer is about as good as it gets and nothing needs to be added.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The point is that if you are going to insist on a specifically connotative meaning; i.e. a “Protestant” is someone who “protests” something and you are going to then insist that the object of this protest is the RCC then you are imbuing the word with a purely connotative meaning that no definition will support.

It either means one of the princes who protested the diet of Speyer or it means a western Christian descended from the Reformation.

It does NOT mean a Christian who lives in a constant state of protest against the papacy.

As to why some Christians who are, really, Protestants deny the label, Edwin’s answer is about as good as it gets and nothing needs to be added.

Hello Steadfast,

I went to the link that you provided and I agree with Edwin. I just wanted to add; whether or not one actually verbally “protests” the Roman Catholic Church or not, they are still “protesting” by way of their actions and/or beliefs, if they are Christian and not Catholic.

First, came the early Christians, called Catholics and then came the Protestants and not the other way around.

If one insists on calling themselves Christian and not Catholic, it is because they reject or “protest” a Christian aspect of Catholicism. If their beliefs were borne out of the Protestant Movement, they are by definition Protestant.

Protestant Christians are in a constant state of “protest” against the Papacy, by their own actions and beliefs. “Christians”, because they are in a constant state of “protesting” or in a constant state of rejection (same thing)…reject Christian truths found in Catholicism and in some cases this “rejection” or “protesting” can be heretical.

Peace

 

[catholiconce]

I was raised Catholic spent 43 years in the Roman Catholic Church. I am now a member of a lutheran church. Never been happier in a church and feel closer to God closer to his son Jesus the Christ. I am not a protestant I am a Lutheran AS a Lutheran I am part of the holy catholic church the universal christian church founded by Jesus. Jimmy B can say what he wants and he will and He and others will never change my mind. Oh some of my family is upset but it is not up to them. I feel the Holy spirit called me home to the lutheran rite.

 

[catholiconce]

Reformation within the Catholic Church, started well before Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis. I refuse to accept the “romantic” or “illustrious” view of a man who was Excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church and who was a heretic and became an enemy of Catholicism. Martin Luther, directly and in-directly caused more harm to Catholicism and to Christianity, in general, than did the abuses he first complained about. Martin Luther was basically, a “disgruntled employee” with a huge ego, who had an issue regarding a local problem, with a local Bishop, which was corrected! The German empire took up his “cause” and so did King Henry the Eighth and many Catholics were subsequently martyred (murdered) because of the “Protestant Movement”. Catholics were order by the English, Protestant King, for example, to submit to his authority or die; many Catholics died because of their refusal to submit to the King and to Protestantism, were on the other hand… many Protestants lived…

I hope this helps…

You had better study your History Jimmy B the entire history not just what the RCC wants you to know .they project only the side of the story that puts them in the best light. Do not forget all the Protestants killed by Catholics.

 

[ibkc]

I was raised Catholic spent 43 years in the Roman Catholic Church. I am now a member of a lutheran church. Never been happier in a church and feel closer to God closer to his son Jesus the Christ. I am not a protestant I am a Lutheran …

Since you are someone who was once Catholic, who has rejected the Catholic Church in favor of the church of the original rebel, Martin Luther; and who spends time on at least one Catholic forum raging angrily against the eeeeeeeevil and horrible Catholic Church, I’d say you are about as close to a “real” Protestant as it can possibly get in this day and time.

 

[Contarini]

You had better study your History Jimmy B the entire history not just what the RCC wants you to know .they project only the side of the story that puts them in the best light. Do not forget all the Protestants killed by Catholics.

Why would anyone do this? It is a Catholic historian, Brad Gregory, who has written the best account yet of martyrdom in the sixteenth century (on all sides–he does not try to exaggerate Catholic martyrdoms or whitewash the many cases of Protestants and Anabaptists martyred by Catholics). I doubt that you have actually read many Catholic historians (as opposed to apologists and propagandists, who generally consider most of the real Catholic historians as way too liberal). Nor, apparently, have you paid any serious attention to the frequent recognitions by Pope JPII of the many evil things done by Catholics.

There’s a mainstream of historical scholarship on these subjects, on which there is relatively little disagreement (at least on matters of fact) between Protestants, Catholics, and secularists. (Another excellent scholar on this subject, for instance, is the wholly secular Natalie Zemon Davis.) Extremists on both sides want to ignore this consensus because it doesn’t suit their ideology.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Martin Luther saw this abuse as a catholic priest and stood up and spoke out. who is to say that there was no abuse at the time and that Luther was right. None of us were there. So we believe what others tells us History is passed down. Sometimes in life certain things are left out of history if our history puts us in a bad light.

This is a cop-out. I can recommend you lots of books on the period, most of them not written by Catholics, which would give you a more balanced perspective (if you care–given your posts so far, you haven’t given me any reason to think that you care about truth). You could start with Heiko Oberman’s *Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. *(Oberman was Dutch Reformed, and in fact was about as anti-Catholic as a serious, conscientious modern scholar gets.) Luther himself made it very clear that the Reformation as he saw it was not about abuses, which many late medieval reformers had tried to address, but about the Gospel. Luther said over and over again that his Reformation stood or fell on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. So talking about the abuses of early-sixteenth-century Catholicism is a red herring. That’s not what the Reformation was about (though of course those abuses helped trigger Luther’s protest).

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

I was raised Catholic spent 43 years in the Roman Catholic Church. I am now a member of a lutheran church. Never been happier in a church and feel closer to God closer to his son Jesus the Christ. I am not a protestant I am a Lutheran AS a Lutheran I am part of the holy catholic church the universal christian church founded by Jesus. Jimmy B can say what he wants and he will and He and others will never change my mind. Oh some of my family is upset but it is not up to them. I feel the Holy spirit called me home to the lutheran rite.

You cannot be a part of the One Holy Catholic Church. the universal church. that is what you believe. what you believe does not make it true. for there is one Truth and not many truths. if what is taught in your church is not the same as the CC then you are not a part of it. there is only One True Church and not many churches. as catholic we dont say we feel we say we follow the Truth because it is True. there was One Church until a rebellious monk with no authority, because authority belong to One Church only, rebeled against the CC and formed another religion does not make you church catholic. the Lord built One Church. according to history the CC is the only Church with Apostolic succession and no other. the same for today if any priest decide to leave the CC and formed another religion he can no longer be called catholic. we dont believe that Our Lord intended every man for himself to pick up a Bible and interpret as they like without the True Church whom He gave full authority to teach all men. Our Lord never said when my Church fails then i will built many others churches. it only make sense that Our Lord cannot go against His own Words. He could not have promised us One Church than come up with many others with so many diferent interpretations of His Words. you can say whatever you want but this doesnt sound a Godly thing to anyone.

The Holy Spirit could never give so many different interpretation of the Word of God. For God said Himself.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church .”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by catholiconce
Martin Luther saw this abuse as a catholic priest and stood up and spoke out. who is to say that there was no abuse at the time and that Luther was right. None of us were there. So we believe what others tells us History is passed down. Sometimes in life certain things are left out of history if our history puts us in a bad light. **

it does not matter what happened within the Church at the time. we must trust in Our Lord when He said that gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. He never said that if oneone sins in the Church that another churches would be formed. besides we have to understand that we are all sinners according to Our God. none of us are perfect. Our Lord never said that the people in His Church would be perfect either. but He did say that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. dont you think He knew that those things would happened. well He did and He does. what it is false is what you people believe that it is ok that each person is able to interpret the Word of God, this is not Biblical. you should know this.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[allhers]

So if nobody is really protesting anything —how come we aren’t one big happy family?

 

[backwoods_blues]

You cannot be a part of the One Holy Catholic Church. the universal church. that is what you believe. what you believe does not make it true. for there is one Truth and not many truths. if what is taught in your church is not the same as the CC then you are not a part of it. there is only One True Church and not many churches. as catholic we dont say we feel we say we follow the Truth because it is True. there was One Church until a rebellious monk with no authority, because authority belong to One Church only, rebeled against the CC and formed another religion does not make you church catholic. the Lord built One Church. according to history the CC is the only Church with Apostolic succession and no other. the same for today if any priest decide to leave the CC and formed another religion he can no longer be called catholic. we dont believe that Our Lord intended every man for himself to pick up a Bible and interpret as they like without the True Church whom He gave full authority to teach all men. Our Lord never said when my Church fails then i will built many others churches. it only make sense that Our Lord cannot go against His own Words. He could not have promised us One Church than come up with many others with so many diferent interpretations of His Words. you can say whatever you want but this doesnt sound a Godly thing to anyone.

The Holy Spirit could never give so many different interpretation of the Word of God. For God said Himself.
You had better look at the defintion of the word catholic

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church .”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[teancum79]

Because what is plain and pure to one is utter nonsense to another. And there is a lot of stuff in the Bible and just life that people disagree on. Even if everyone all join in a single religion today tomorrow there would be a division.