Protestant and not protestant

I have a topic that some may or may not want to discuss. So many people–a vast majority of people or Catholics that is–group all non-Catholic religions into the group Protestant. Well I think those who know a little about history can agree that not all non-Catholic religions fall into this category. For instance, Mormons are not technicall–as far as I understand it–Protestant and the same goes for the Anglicans and many American evangelical or Bible churches. The way to approach these churches from an apologetic standpoint and even an ecumenical standpoint can not be the same as the way we approach truly Protestant Churches. I do not presume to know the way in which we approach non-Potestant, non-Catholic christian churches, and that is why I submit this as a conversation starter. How do the approaches differ. What can we say to a Protestant that we can’t say to an evangelical/fundamentalist/etc.? Maybe I’m not being to clear with this, but I think that some people, particularly people in the South who may read this will know what I’m getting at. You can’t talk to a Restorationinst the same way you talk to a Lutheran. An apologist has to have different stragies, I think, predicated on the audience. Tell me if I’m wrong. Any thoughts?

[quote=vmteglia]I have a topic that some may or may not want to discuss. So many people–a vast majority of people or Catholics that is–group all non-Catholic religions into the group Protestant. Well I think those who know a little about history can agree that not all non-Catholic religions fall into this category. For instance, Mormons are not technicall–as far as I understand it–Protestant and the same goes for the Anglicans and many American evangelical or Bible churches. The way to approach these churches from an apologetic standpoint and even an ecumenical standpoint can not be the same as the way we approach truly Protestant Churches. I do not presume to know the way in which we approach non-Potestant, non-Catholic christian churches, and that is why I submit this as a conversation starter. How do the approaches differ. What can we say to a Protestant that we can’t say to an evangelical/fundamentalist/etc.? Maybe I’m not being to clear with this, but I think that some people, particularly people in the South who may read this will know what I’m getting at. You can’t talk to a Restorationinst the same way you talk to a Lutheran. An apologist has to have different stragies, I think, predicated on the audience. Tell me if I’m wrong. Any thoughts?
[/quote]

A Protestant community is one that has it’s roots in the Reformation. The Anglican community most certainly is Protestant. So are any of the subsequent splits of a Protestant community. The Mormans are not. I think most Catholics understand this, although they may at times use rather loose language.

Mormons are not Christian. They believe in many gods. They are either henotheists or polytheists, the jury still seems to be out. Maybe some are henotheists, some are polytheists? Anyway, they’re not monotheists.

The “Trinity” is three gods with a common purpose.

Mormon males may become gods and rule over their own planets in the afterlife.

Jesus and Satan are brothers.

This is only a fraction of the differences. You can readily see that they have nothing in common with Christianity, except the vocabulary. They use the same words, but ascribe to them totally different meanings.

JMJ Jay

I never am refering to Mormon or JW when I say Protestant. Oneness Pentecostals I think, have also passed over the line. However, even the most anti-Catholic Bible alone church out there I would call Protestant loosely. They are still our separated Brethren although they clearly would not agree. Any Evangelical Church I have been to I would also consider Protestant.

However, I try to differentiate by just naming the denomination since Protestant covers such a wide range from Lutheran to Baptist (boy am I discovering so many differences just under baptist!) to Evangelical or Fundamental. I think discussions are much better when a denomination is defined rather than lumped personally. But I also tend to stick to the Evangelical, fundamental, pentecostal crowd, because it is where I came from and have the best understanding of.

So although I would agree with you that Mormon are not Protestant, I would disagree with you that Bible alone and Evangelical are not protestant.

God Bless,
Maria

Didn’t Henry’s break from Rome occur prior to the Protestant Reformation? From a historical standpoint wouldn’t this separate Anglicans from Protestants?

[quote=vmteglia]Didn’t Henry’s break from Rome occur prior to the Protestant Reformation? From a historical standpoint wouldn’t this separate Anglicans from Protestants?
[/quote]

No Henry VIII broke from Rome after the Reformation started. Henry wrote a book against Luther and condemned him. For this the Pope gave the King of England the title “Defender of the Faith.” This title has remained to this very day, but recently Prince Edward took it upon himself to change the title to “Defender of Faith” deleting the definite article “the.” This deletion changes entirely the meaning of the title as given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X.

Luther denounced Henry VIII saying, “a nit which has not yet turned into a louse, a brat whose father was a bug, a donkey who wants to read the psalter . . . a sacrilegious murderer . . . a chosen tool of the Devil, a papistical sea-serpent, a blockhead and as bad as the worst rogues whom indeed he outrivals, an abortion of a fool, an limb of Satan.” (Gisar, Luther, II, 153 quoted in Warren H Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 4, Christendom Press. 2000. pp. 58-59)

[quote=vmteglia]Didn’t Henry’s break from Rome occur prior to the Protestant Reformation? From a historical standpoint wouldn’t this separate Anglicans from Protestants?
[/quote]

I believe Luther and Ulrich Zwingli’s revolt predated Henry’s final break with Rome, and we cannot deny the influence of the Reformation upon the development of Anglicanism. Anglicanism is therefore a creature of the Reformation, whether we accept it or not.

Gerry :slight_smile:

[quote=RobedWithLight]I believe Luther and Ulrich Zwingli’s revolt predated Henry’s final break with Rome, and we cannot deny the influence of the Reformation upon the development of Anglicanism. Anglicanism is therefore a creature of the Reformation, whether we accept it or not.

Gerry :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Right. Henry VIII wrote a pamphlet refuting Luther’s claims and was rewarded by the pope with the title * Defender of the Faith* which the British royalty still retain.

[quote=vmteglia]I have a topic that some may or may not want to discuss. So many people–a vast majority of people or Catholics that is–group all non-Catholic religions into the group Protestant. Well I think those who know a little about history can agree that not all non-Catholic religions fall into this category.
[/quote]

As I see it, there are three categories of Christian churches. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. There is no confusion about the Orthodox or Catholic. Protestants are those churches which are derived from those that separated from the Catholic Church about the time of Luther and Henry IIX. Notice that I indicated or those that derived from the reformation era churches. Why is it that Protestants deny being protestants. Are you ashamed of being Protestant?

Sure, as far as I can simply catagorize them.

  1. Catholic Christian. Posses all of the marks of the Church of Christ; One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
  2. Orthodox Christian; concur with the Catholic Church in matters of doctrine, but not authority.
  3. Separated Bretheren; Concur with the Catholic Church regarding matters of Christology, but differ in matters of doctrine and authority. Examples; Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Salvation Army, and the list goes on…
  4. Non-Christian appearing Christian; conflict with the Catholic Church in matters of Christology, doctrine and authority. Examples: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Oneness Pentacostals, Freethinkers.
  5. Theistic Infidels; Rather odd sounding for a group, but they believe in the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but reject Christ altogether. Examples: Judaism and Muhamedism (Islam).
  6. Pantheists: Reject or are ignorant of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, but have a complex set of dieties that usually have structured worship. Examples include Shamanism, Druidism, Wicca, Gnostics.
  7. Antitheists; Reject the God of Abraham outright. Sometimes claim a perverse sense of spirituality, typically grounded in ultra-humanism. Examples; most Enlightenment philosophers, Levayan Satanists, Cult of Lucifer, most self-proclaimed atheists.

[quote=vmteglia]I have a topic that some may or may not want to discuss. So many people–a vast majority of people or Catholics that is–group all non-Catholic religions into the group Protestant. Well I think those who know a little about history can agree that not all non-Catholic religions fall into this category. For instance, Mormons are not technicall–as far as I understand it–Protestant and the same goes for the Anglicans and many American evangelical or Bible churches. The way to approach these churches from an apologetic standpoint and even an ecumenical standpoint can not be the same as the way we approach truly Protestant Churches. I do not presume to know the way in which we approach non-Potestant, non-Catholic christian churches, and that is why I submit this as a conversation starter. How do the approaches differ. What can we say to a Protestant that we can’t say to an evangelical/fundamentalist/etc.? Maybe I’m not being to clear with this, but I think that some people, particularly people in the South who may read this will know what I’m getting at. You can’t talk to a Restorationinst the same way you talk to a Lutheran. An apologist has to have different stragies, I think, predicated on the audience. Tell me if I’m wrong. Any thoughts?
[/quote]

Wasn’t allowed to edit my inital post, but after some reflection, decided to rename some of the catagories to more accurately reflect their relation to Catholicism.

  1. Catholic Christian.
  2. Schismatic Christian, examples: Orthodox Churches, SSPX, Old Catholic Churches.
  3. Heretical Christian. In the proper sense of the word, heretical is one who holds doctrinal beliefs contrary to Catholicism, not intended to be uncharitable.
  4. Pseudo-Christian.
  5. Non-Christian Theists
  6. Pantheists.
  7. Antitheists.

[quote=All4lifetoo]Luther denounced Henry VIII saying, “a nit which has not yet turned into a louse, a brat whose father was a bug, a donkey who wants to read the psalter . . . a sacrilegious murderer . . . a chosen tool of the Devil, a papistical sea-serpent, a blockhead and as bad as the worst rogues whom indeed he outrivals, an abortion of a fool, an limb of Satan.” (Gisar, Luther, II, 153 quoted in Warren H Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 4, Christendom Press. 2000. pp. 58-59)
[/quote]

Wow, Martin, why’n’cha tell us what you really think??

:stuck_out_tongue:

DaveBj

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.