Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as “separated.” To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices. “They” had a pedophilia scandal, and “they” have a controversial pope. A Reformational Catholic recognizes that turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is turmoil in his own family.
Seems a bit poorly thought out to me. Protestants don’t just look at the Catholics and do the opposite, that is just ludicrous. Protestants still have plenty of customs that are Catholic in origin, but they have abandoned the ones they don’t view as biblically sound. At this point, there are plenty of Protestants who don’t even know what a lot of the Catholic customs are, because they aren’t paying much attention.
As for “reformed Catholics”, this seems like more of a theoretical construct the author wishes existed, rather than a real thing. Catholics certainly don’t view any Protestants as “catholic”, reformed or otherwise. Opinion on the Protestant side about how to view the Catholic church is divided, but generally, they don’t view any denomination as “catholic”. Instead, membership in the universal church is held to be an individual matter, not a corporate one.
“To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. “
Depends. If they trust in their own righteousness to be saved, and think that they are earning or keeping salvation based on their obedience, then they are damned, since they do not trust in the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. By Grace alone, by faith alone, by Christ alone, for God’s glory alone, are not negotiable doctrines for Reformed Christians, and whoever does not hold to them isn’t Reformed at all, even if they try to bastardize the term by adding “Catholic” next to it. And so, whoever does not hold to them, is certainly in profound danger. If they despair of themselves and trust in Christ for the full work of their salvation, the imputation of His righteousness (not their own) being placed upon them, then they do well, even with all their flaky doctrines, even if they themselves do not understand all the thelogical jargon which they are unaware of.
Though I do notice that, most of the time, God pulls people out of these organizations, and I would be suspect of a person’s salvation who does not eventually leave these groups, whether the RCC, or Seventh Day Adventists, etc.
All Christians need to seriously examine their own faith, to see whether or not they are IN the faith to begin with. This means studying the Holy Scriptures, and not remaining slack in their responsibilities. But I have confident that all whom the Father has given to the Son will surely come to the Son, one way or the other.
“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.”
Maybe that’s how it is in England. But in the US, most protestants and evangelicals I know don’t spend much time at all thinking about the Catholic church. When it comes up, I and virtually every protestant I know think of Catholics as our brothers in Christ, despite doctrinal differences. Personally, I feel much, much more kinship with Catholics than I do with the secular world.
he obviously overlooks traditional conservative denominations.
oh well. i supose it wouldn’t have fit the story he desired to write.
A matter of semantics I think. Obviously protest-ants are “protesting” against Catholicism, but that kind of anti-catholiticism has been on the decline for centuries - after all the behaviors of the Catholic Church that inspired it have also sharply declined (thank goodness).
At this point in life I would be worried if I stopped being criticized.
Like: Err-Hrr?
I always thought reformed Catholics became Protestants, not the other way around. At least that’s what it used to mean.
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.
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
Peter J. Leithart / First Things / Douglas Wilson PING
Not bad.
>> 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.
**Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism.**
I think it slowly is happening. Anyone else?
I also think for me it poses questions of history as it relates to foundation which is barely touched on in this article.
The first being the true origins of each 'faction'--origins or Catholicism, origins or the Church or England, origins or Evangelicalism, origins of Reformed Catholicism (which is a new concept proposed in this article--to me. However it was not clearly differentiated in the article from Catholicism itself only in relationship to Protestants and Evangelicals.)
Secondarily this article for me also begs the question or history of text (i.e bible and its origins and varied interpretations.) Since Evangelicals place such heavy emphasis on biblical interpretation this latter question is a defining question. After all didn't the bible ultimately originate (besides the blatant response of God himself) but text selected, gathered and organized by the Catholic church--the origin of the text to begin with. The answer to that question in my opinion has a profound influence on both religions as they related to one another.
In my opinion and experience that many new things and ideas build upon and also more importantly form out of REACTION to the old. The chaotic and rebellious 1960's springing from more venerable 1950's is an example. The first baby boomers REACTING to the greatest generation (their parents). In my opinion one need look at the first of each new generation to truly discover its origin. For instance the latter baby boomers were mainly copying the initial rebels of the baby boomer. The initial ones were really where the theoretical philosophy can be discovered. THe latter group imitating came from trend established by the first.
Thus it is my thought that in the same way one can look at Christian 'factions' and their history. Of course this is just one perspective and way of looking at the topic. Yet I do believe this is way REACTION is brought up in the article because the truth is many things are formed initially in reaction whether the latter group understands this practical reality or not.
Simply put, it never reached the nationalist levels it did in say, Germany (or Spain for the Catholics).
So at that point, it is a moot point. It isn't a “protest” anymore.
Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as “separated.” To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices. “They” had a pedophilia scandal, and “they” have a controversial pope. A Reformational Catholic recognizes that turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is turmoil in his own family.
As an Evangelical who was raised and educated Roman Catholic (Jesuit no less), I would never call members of a church who declare with their lips Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as non-Christian. It is not brick and mortar and linage that makes up the Body of Christ, He is the Head and those who confess Him cry Abba, Father. This is what I believe, what St Paul delivered to the Romans in chapter 8:
Romans 8:
Romans 8 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
8 Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are in union with the Messiah Yeshua. 2 Why? Because the Torah of the Spirit, which produces this life in union with Messiah Yeshua, has set me free from the “Torah” of sin and death. 3 For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature, 4 so that the just requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us who do not run our lives according to what our old nature wants but according to what the Spirit wants. 5 For those who identify with their old nature set their minds on the things of the old nature, but those who identify with the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 Having one’s mind controlled by the old nature is death, but having one’s mind controlled by the Spirit is life and shalom. 7 For the mind controlled by the old nature is hostile to God, because it does not submit itself to God’s Torah — indeed, it cannot. 8 Thus, those who identify with their old nature cannot please God.
9 But you, you do not identify with your old nature but with the Spirit — provided the Spirit of God is living inside you, for anyone who doesn’t have the Spirit of the Messiah doesn’t belong to him. 10 However, if the Messiah is in you, then, on the one hand, the body is dead because of sin; but, on the other hand, the Spirit is giving life because God considers you righteous. 11 And if the Spirit of the One who raised Yeshua from the dead is living in you, then the One who raised the Messiah Yeshua from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit living in you.
12 So then, brothers, we don’t owe a thing to our old nature that would require us to live according to our old nature. 13 For if you live according to your old nature, you will certainly die; but if, by the Spirit, you keep putting to death the practices of the body, you will live.
14 All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to bring you back again into fear; on the contrary, you received the Spirit, who makes us sons and by whose power we cry out, “Abba!” (that is, “Dear Father!”). 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our own spirits that we are children of God; 17 and if we are children, then we are also heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with the Messiah — provided we are suffering with him in order also to be glorified with him.
18 I don’t think the sufferings we are going through now are even worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed to us in the future. 19 The creation waits eagerly for the sons of God to be revealed; 20 for the creation was made subject to frustration — not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it. But it was given a reliable hope 21 that it too would be set free from its bondage to decay and would enjoy the freedom accompanying the glory that God’s children will have. 22 We know that until now, the whole creation has been groaning as with the pains of childbirth; 23 and not only it, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we continue waiting eagerly to be made sons — that is, to have our whole bodies redeemed and set free. 24 It was in this hope that we were saved. But if we see what we hope for, it isn’t hope — after all, who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we continue hoping for something we don’t see, then we still wait eagerly for it, with perseverance.
26 Similarly, the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we don’t know how to pray the way we should. But the Spirit himself pleads on our behalf with groanings too deep for words; 27 and the one who searches hearts knows exactly what the Spirit is thinking, because his pleadings for God’s people accord with God’s will. 28 Furthermore, we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called in accordance with his purpose; 29 because those whom he knew in advance, he also determined in advance would be conformed to the pattern of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers; 30 and those whom he thus determined in advance, he also called; and those whom he called, he also caused to be considered righteous; and those whom he caused to be considered righteous he also glorified!
31 What, then, are we to say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare even his own Son, but gave him up on behalf of us all — is it possible that, having given us his Son, he would not give us everything else too? 33 So who will bring a charge against God’s chosen people? Certainly not God — he is the one who causes them to be considered righteous! 34 Who punishes them? Certainly not the Messiah Yeshua, who died and — more than that — has been raised, is at the right hand of God and is actually pleading on our behalf! 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Messiah? Trouble? Hardship? Persecution? Hunger? Poverty? Danger? War? 36 As the Tanakh puts it,
“For your sake we are being put to death all day long, we are considered sheep to be slaughtered.”[a]
37 No, in all these things we are superconquerors, through the one who has loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor other heavenly rulers, neither what exists nor what is coming, 39 neither powers above nor powers below, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which comes to us through the Messiah Yeshua, our Lord.
I used the Complete Jewish Bible version for a reason. This article talks about Prots and Roman Catholics. Permit us not to forget we have Messianic Jewish Christian brothers and sisters as well. We should be putting this all in perspective using the NT as our lens. As the Body of Christ, His Church expanded, do you think it was the intent of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the apostles to have one bishop as head of all others to the four corners of the earth. I know we all have opinions on it and fight tooth and nail on such issues, but let's give it a critical look.
When I studied at Cambridge...
Looks like SOMEONE missed the Wheat and Tares lesson!
And, it appears, neither is the COUNTER Reformation!