Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
Accurate insofar as the fact goes that all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox groups that claim to be "Christian" are classified as Protestant.
As a group they otherwise have very little in common.
Reformational Catholic is what we call Nancy Pelosi Catholic, or Cafeteria Catholic....you believe what you want to and keep the Catholic in your title - like “our” universities.
Nothing new under the sun, even heresies splitting up.
“The idea that we define ourselves as ‘the opposite of Catholicism’ is ludicrous.”
No, actually it makes perfect sense historically. The problem is that Protestants in America today have a difficult time seeing it because this was always a Protestant establishment.
Move to Retry Leithart
Friday, May 10, 2013, 5:13 PM
Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz
“The chief prosecutor in Peter Leithart’s recently concluded heresy trial stunned many by converting to Roman Catholicism shortly after bringing his prosecution. Now some are citing his conversion as reason to declare a mistrial:”
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/05/10/move-to-retry-leithart/
Is Against Christianity Against Christianity (video interviews)
http://wn.com/peter_j._leithart
To say someone who never thinks about Catholicism defines themselves as “Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can” is just stupid. Someone who never thinks about A cannot be striving to be the opposite of A.
Baptists try to follow the Bible. We never discuss what Catholicism is, nor does anyone I’ve met in 40 years CARE. The ONLY standard I’ve ever heard discussed in Baptist discussions on what we should believe is “What does the Bible say”.
Sorry, but our theological world doesn’t revolve around you. In terms of defining what we should accept or reject, you don’t even exist. You might as well suggest we are trying to be different from Hinduism.
Peter J. Leithart / First Things / Douglas Wilson PING
Not bad.
Catholicism is not a sect, and while it is rigid in Christ's teachings, the teaching on the Lutherans is: Their communions can be genuine spiritual encounters with Christ.
We share with them in the basic expression of Christian unity -- prayer to the One Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ
>> Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, ... he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, <<
On these two points, he would also find himself in accord with Catholicism. Catholics reject sola fide, in part, because faith comes from grace, and necessarily accompanies works; Catholics reject semipelagianism that holds otherwise. Catholics also judge all tradition against scripture; the distinction with Protestants is that they interpret scripture in the light of tradition, as opposed to, as this author justly condemns, a soteriology that presumes that if the Catholics believe it, it must be wrong.
When I was a kid, I decided that the best definition of Protestant was a Christian who was not Catholic or Orthodox.
While that may seem simplistic, I still sort of see it that way. The writer is correct in the meaning of the word “Protestant”. It is a negative term and has no meaning other than as a protest against the RC Church.
For that reason plus the lack of any central organization, once the Reformation occurred, it “went wild”, in that it spawned new churches/faith groups with ministers who went out on their own if they found even one piece of the Biblical interpretation that was in conflict with that of the minister. That is why there are thousands of denominations now.
Depends on the person. Some of the most fervent and holiest people I knew were simple illiterate folks who just heard the Word of God and believed
While it took people with an education to translate to our language,s that is appreciated but we can do the rest for our selves.
I suggest that you read this article:
So many seem to think that the essence of being Protestant is to conscientiously object to what is or was Roman Catholic. A little history and a little linguistic research shows Protestant to be a much more positive word, referring to what the original Protestants stood for rather than what they stood against........Few churches ever adopted the name “Protestant.” The most commonly adopted designations were rather “evangelical” and “reformed.” ... [W]hen the word Protestant came into currency in England (in Elizabethan times), its accepted significance was not “objection” but “avowal” or “witness” or “confession” (as the Latin protestari meant also “to profess”).
-- from the thread History Lesson: Positively Protestant
as I said Well,the author errs by making a blanket statement. Not all "Protestants" are like that, however, some are -- and I know a couple personally who did that (now they are back to The Church)
The two that I did know were Assemblies of God at that point, then they jumped 4 or 5 times to various other groups and finally came back
i have no doubt that some non-Catholics do not define themselves as "the opposite of Catholics", but I know personally that some DO define themselves that way, so the author is wrong to give a blanket definition either way, just as you or I would be.
Baptists try to follow the Bible. We never discuss what Catholicism is, nor does anyone I’ve met in 40 years CARE. The ONLY standard I’ve ever heard discussed in Baptist discussions on what we should believe is “What does the Bible say”.
Catholicism is not an issue to Baptists, they do not spend any time or effort on it.
Why should they?
“We never discuss what Catholicism is, nor does anyone I’ve met in 40 years CARE...”
Just search ‘independent Baptist Catholic tracts.’ I mean, have you ever walked out of your church after services and the cars in the lot have tracts specifically about the faith you belong to on the windshields? That’s caring a heck of a lot in my book, I mean what else would it be called? I don’t think it is a high %, but at least some Baptists care a heck of a lot.
Freegards
“well, they are considered true brethren. And we can share the basic expression which is praying together.”
You can pray with a Muslim, so you’re just making me chuckle at this point. If you considered them true brethren, then your church would have no problem with you sharing the “family meal” with them.
“Catholicism is not a sect, and while it is rigid in Christ’s teachings, the teaching on the Lutherans is: Their communions can be genuine spiritual encounters with Christ.”
Call it what you want, but you are misleadingly leaving out a very relevant portion of your church’s teachings on this matter. You acknowledge that there could be something genuine there, but you can’t participate in it together:
“Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper ... profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1400)
“Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. (canon 844 § 4)”
http://old.usccb.org/liturgy/q&a/mass/communion.shtml
Catholicism is not an issue to Baptists, they do not spend any time or effort on it.
Why should they?
I don,t know, i did not make that statement.
I’ve heard the general claim that “Protestant” meant “one who professes,” and have generally accepted it as true. However, checking with on-line translators, that seems largely false.
“Protestari” means “to protest.”
“Protest” can also be translated as “recluso,” “acclamo,” and others.
“To profess” is “confitentur,” (as in, “confess”) or “profiteor,” as in (”to promote a belief.”
HOWEVER, I say only LARGELY false: the 12th translation in Google of “profiteor” was “protest.” But in those contexts, the correlated words all had the modern connotation of “protest” rejected by your source: “recuso” (”refuse”), “acclamo” (”object”), “interpello,” (”reject”), “intercedo,” etc. (Google find correlated words to serve the function of a thesaurus.) So even if you accept the argument that “protest” was a translation of “profiteor,” in those contexts where profiteor was translated as “protest,” the meaning of “protest” was, indeed, more likely “to object” than “to confess.”
So, while the article could possibly be somewhat accurate, it’s hard to believe that even in those days, the term “protestant” lacked any connotation of objection. Indeed, “Protestant” was rejected by many Anglicans precisely because they did NOT see themselves as protesting against the Catholic church (as they saw Calvinists and Lutherans), but rather re-establishing a Church of England which they said had existed in the same manner of independence from Rome as had the Orthodox churches.
(In this, they have their history precisely backwards, however: St. Augustine of Canterbury established the Church of England specifically to fulfill the wishes of Rome to provide an educational establishment with which to counter the monks of Ireland, which had lapsed into semipelagianism.)
There are all sorts of Baptists. I’ve had some Baptist congregations tell me I’m a pervert for preferring a modern translation to the KJV. Oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.