I see. So the definition is whatever you say it is.

What doctrine or practice do all Protestants adhere to that can be used to define them? I use the definition of "non-Catholic followers of Christ" because it applies to all Protestants.

Got it. Historical facts such as what Protestantism actually reflected confessionally are irrelevant.

There are different confessions among different groups.

And by your definition I could make Muslims into Protestants.

Are they primarily followers of Christ or Mohammed?

They do respect Jesus theoretically. Just not as the Son of God. And you don’t get the absurdity of that? Your definition cannot ever work.

What do you mean by work?

It is not truth.

What's false?

We don’t mind arguing about our differences, the real ones. But if you’re just going to use some arbitrary, irrational definition based on personal preferences, how does that help?

What's irrational?

What's a personal preference?

It's a very precise term, which can logically include Oneness Pentecostals and high church Anglicans.

Catholics do not regard all forms of Protestantism as equivalent, since they aren't equivalent. We view them as separated brothers in Christ who are imperfectly united to the Church to varying degrees.

For example, churches that uphold seven sacraments are closer to Catholicism than churches that reject the sacraments.

Furthermore, your definition allows that it is possible to be a Christian without being an RC.

So we may be saved then, and full of the Holy Spirit, and enlightened as to faith in Jesus, without the least aid of papal recognition, or participation in any of the sacraments, which supposedly can only be administered properly by Rome?

The Church goes further than that, teaching that any person can be saved if that person follows his conscience to the best of his ability, strives to do good, believes in God, eternal punishments and rewards, and is ignorant of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own. Such a person would possess implicit faith. The salvation of such a person is always through the grace of Christ and His Atonement.

Does "no salvation outside the Church" include non-Catholic Christians?

Regardless, union with Rome is normative for salvation, and a sure means of receiving Christ's grace through the Sacraments.

I have a legitimate question for you. What is the official Roman Catholic definition of Protestant?

And I don’t mean what some private Catholic author came up with. I mean stated as the official dogma of Rome, so there is no possibility you could be simply venting your own private opinion. And please cite your source.

Sure. You can look up a lot of things (not every Catholic teaching) in the Catechism on-line.

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836
"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320
837
"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321
838
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

The Church goes further than that, teaching that any person can be saved if that person follows his conscience to the best of his ability, strives to do good, believes in God, eternal punishments and rewards, and is ignorant of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own. Such a person would possess implicit faith. The salvation of such a person is always through the grace of Christ and His Atonement.

Please, is this your opinion or is it taught throughout the Roman Catholic church? Either way, thank you for posting this.

#1463

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."

What doctrine or practice do all Protestants adhere to that can be used to define them? I use the definition of "non-Catholic followers of Christ" because it applies to all Protestants.

I can't answer that question till you answer mine. What is the Roman magisterium's official, certified, dogmatic definition of Protestant.?

That is what I asked for and the remainder of your post failed to provide. It makes no sense to evaluate what Protestant's are or are not until

1. Either we get a Rome-approved, purportedly infallible definition to work with (I will hold my breath while I wait - or not), or ...

2. We agree to a working definition that accurately accounts for the common theological core that defines historic protestantism (I know - fat chance).

Here's the problem. If you use historical genetics as opposed to confessional correlation, you are going to end up proving the Oneness Pentecostals are Catholic. Read that again if it helps. I suspect it's counterintuitive for you. Here's what I mean. Your genetic approach for Protestants ascribes the Protestant label to whatever goof ball derivatives spin off of it no matter how attenuated from the confessional source (Westminster, Dort, Augsburg, to name a few), and no matter how weak the historical connection. But for Catholicism, the standard is different. Protestantism is an historical derivative of Catholicism, albeit with modified content, yet it is treated as no longer Catholic, because of a difference in that content!

So your definition is liable to the criticism of a double standard:

1. If you allow yourself the flimsiest sort of genetic connection to encapsulate as Protestant every religion that has some remote connection to Christ, then you are duty bound to apply that same standard to Catholicism's relationship to Protestantism, and admit we are Catholic after all, even though we don't meet the criteria of matching your confessional content. And as there is no logical stopping point for this slippery slope, and as Oneness Pentacostalism could in the barest sense be viewed as a historical derivative of Protestantism, it is therefore also Catholic, because confessional content doesn't matter, only historical derivation. Right?

2. But if you must insist on using confessional content to keep the separation between Catholicism and Protestantism, then you must, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, apply the same standard of confessional content and allow historic Protestants to separate themselves from their offshoots by the evaluation of confessional content.

BTW, if you wish to test this theory, here is a link that provides you access to all the major and even some of the minor confessional standards of historic Protestantism. I challenge you to find even one of them that does not have substantially the same Nicene core theology:

http://www.monergism.com/topics/creeds-and-confessions/all-creeds-and-confessions

So again I ask, does your magisterium provide a dogmatic, certified infallible definition for the word "Protestant?" And if not, by what authority do you expect us to accept your privately invented, unauthorized, and logically inconsistent definition?

Peace,

SR