What do Protestant really believe about the Catholic Church?

[steve-b]

These people who practice who class them selves as
Anglican for example, are not protesting against Catholicism. They have better things to do, go to Church, live their lives. Here at least.

A famous Anglican who converted to Catholicism, and who was a prolific writer, had the following to say in his journey into the Catholic Church.

Lecture 12, Ecclesiastical history, Section 4 http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/lecture12.html

Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism…

[PickyPicky]

Of course Newman wasn’t altogether Australian.

[GKMotley]

I think Catholics, in communion with Rome, get to call Anglicans protestants.

Anglicans, who so decide. get to call themselves Catholics. In the Anglican tradition, of course.

[PickyPicky]

And of course the Church of England has been known to call itself Protestant: “the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law”.

[GKMotley]

No way to stop them. Lord knows we Anglican Catholics have tried. And reformed.

Mercy.

[steve-b]

Of course Newman wasn’t altogether Australian.

I think Catholics, in communion with Rome, get to call Anglicans protestants.
Anglicans, who so decide. get to call themselves Catholics. In the Anglican tradition, of course.

Eastern Catholic Bishop emeritus Bishop John in answering a particular question in a Q&A session, about truth, wrote "If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East. All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia”… From

The context he gives can obviously be used in multiple cases / ways, but truth is truth and won’t change. Relativism is a HUGE error infecting societies these days

[GKMotley]

It’s true that Catholics, of the RC stripe, don’t account Anglicans Catholics at all. Don’t account their orders valid, either. And, to any faithful RC, these are truths.

[JonNC]

I have never met a real life person who says they are Protestant.

The term “Protestant” only describes their relationship with Catholicism.

If they aren’t interested or the Catholic Church’s views or presence, the term “Protestant” is really obsolete. Protestants are “protesters” against Catholicism, that’s what the term means. If they are cooperating with, or ignoring Catholicism, the term in an anachronism.

That’s not what the term means. The formal protest was against the civil authorities, not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise, much like the protest Catholics participated in against the HHS Mandate.

[steve-b]

It’s true that Catholics, of the RC stripe, don’t account Anglicans Catholics at all. Don’t account their orders valid, either. And, to any faithful RC, these are truths.

For clarification,

Re: the qualifier “Roman” , Catholics are familiar with that qualifying argument, when coming from a particular non Catholic stripe.

Faithful Catholics are those who are in complete union with the chair of Peter AND also union with all those in union with the chair of Peter.

[steve-b]

I have never met a real life person who says they are Protestant.

The term “Protestant” only describes their relationship with Catholicism.

If they aren’t interested or the Catholic Church’s views or presence, the term “Protestant” is really obsolete. Protestants are “protesters” against Catholicism, that’s what the term means. If they are cooperating with, or ignoring Catholicism, the term in an anachronism.

That’s not what the term means. The formal protest was against the civil authorities, not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise, much like the protest Catholics participated in against the HHS Mandate.

Jon

We probably have gone over this in the past. Luther was the Father of a revolt.

Luther’s errors were listed HERE
Why Luther was excommunicted HERE

[GKMotley]

And all faithful RCs should so affirm, at whatever the appropriate level of theological certainty. As I always say.

[JonNC]

I have never met a real life person who says they are Protestant.

The term “Protestant” only describes their relationship with Catholicism.

If they aren’t interested or the Catholic Church’s views or presence, the term “Protestant” is really obsolete. Protestants are “protesters” against Catholicism, that’s what the term means. If they are cooperating with, or ignoring Catholicism, the term in an anachronism.

That’s not what the term means. The formal protest was against the civil authorities, not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise, much like the protest Catholics participated in against the HHS Mandate.

Jon

We probably have gone over this in the past. Luther was the Father of a revolt.

Luther’s errors were listed HERE
Why Luther was excommunicted HERE

Not sure how that relates to my comment, Steve, but yes, you have said that before.
One thing I have noticed, however, the the changing understanding and expression of that general view by Catholic theologians over the last several decades. And the samecan be said in reverse. In both directions, apologists seem to be behind the curve.

All that said, it doesn’t change the history or meaning of the formal protest

[steve-b]

Not sure how that relates to my comment, Steve, but yes, you have said that before

Point being,
I was responding to your point when you said,

" The formal protest was against the civil authorities,not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise"

The links I gave disagreed with that view.

One thing I have noticed, however, the the changing understanding and expression of that general view by Catholic theologians over the last several decades. And the samecan be said in reverse. In both directions, apologists seem to be behind the curve.

All that said, it doesn’t change the history or meaning of the formal protest

Re: the History
The Church currently has had 21 ecumenical councils, 18 of those ecumenical councils and many local councils as well, took place before Luther revolted. Meaning, the church, in history, worldwide, is continuously reforming herself locally and universally… And as we see, Heretics and trouble makers will always show up with their errors, in that history, as part of the process.

As an aside the following aren’t reformers. But ecumenical and local councils addressed their errors.

[JonNC]

Point being,
I was responding to your point when you said,

" The formal protest was against the civil authorities,not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise "

The links I gave disagreed with that view.

They’re welcome to, but the fact is that the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529 was government, not the Church. The protest was against attempts to limit religious free exercise, not against any Catholic doctrine.

The Church currently has had 21 ecumenical councils, 18 of those ecumenical councils and many local councils as well, took place before Luther revolted. Meaning, the church, in history, worldwide, is continuously reforming herself locally and universally… And as we see, Heretics and trouble makers will always show up with their errors, in that history, as part of the process.

There are 7 truly ecumenical councils. Catholics are free to count for themselves as many as they want. But even that doesn’t respond to the point I made.

[steve-b]

Point being,
I was responding to your point when you said,

" The formal protest was against the civil authorities,not the Catholic Church, at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It wasn’t a protest about doctrine, but a protest against the limiting of religious exercise "

The links I gave disagreed with that view.

They’re welcome to, but the fact is that the Second Diet at Speyer in 1529 was government, not the Church. The protest was against attempts to limit religious free exercise, not against any Catholic doctrine.

Again, point being, that was 8 years AFTER Luther’s revolt and excommunication.

The Church currently has had 21 ecumenical councils, 18 of those ecumenical councils and many local councils as well, took place before Luther revolted. Meaning, the church, in history, worldwide, is continuously reforming herself locally and universally… And as we see, Heretics and trouble makers will always show up with their errors, in that history, as part of the process.

There are 7 truly ecumenical councils. Catholics are free to count for themselves as many as they want. But even that doesn’t respond to the point I made.

You make the point. Those who don’t agree are not Catholic. Those 21 councils dealt with all the important business and issues of the day. Reform has been continuous in and throughout the 2000 yr Catholic Church history. Which IS in response to your point.

[JonNC]

Again, point being, that was 8 years AFTER Luther’s revolt and excommunication.

Irrelevant. The protest was against civil authorities. Now, if you are contending that civil authorities were really the Church, then the argument that it was civil authorities and not the Church that executed “heretics” needs to be explored.

You make the point. Those who don’t agree are not Catholic . Those 21 councils dealt with all the important business and issues of the day. Reform has been continuous in and throughout the 2000 yr Catholic Church history. Which IS in response to your point.

They were councils, but not ecumenical, because the entire Church Catholic did not participate, including most or the patriarchate.
But again, that has nothing to do with the point I am making., being, the protest was not against the Church

[steve-b]

Again, point being, that was 8 years AFTER Luther’s revolt and excommunication.

Irrelevant. The protest was against civil authorities. Now, if you are contending that civil authorities were really the Church, then the argument that it was civil authorities and not the Church that executed “heretics” needs to be explored.

Those authorities you speak of were Lutheran. They already by definition were Luther’s followers. Any executions you speak of, were then done by Lutherans

Besides, the Church did not allow anyone in the Church to execute anyone. That was condemned in the 13th century by an ecumenical council

the Lateran Council in 1215 , pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp canon 3, (exterminate) comes from the Latin exterminare, http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=exterminare which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). In Latin it does nor mean to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. The official language of the Church is Latin . The Church does not and did not change her position on this issue of capital punishment and has been consistent on the issue… Even pope Francis today is speaking out against capital punishment and there being no good reason for it…

You make the point. Those who don’t agree are not Catholic . Those 21 councils dealt with all the important business and issues of the day. Reform has been continuous in and throughout the 2000 yr Catholic Church history. Which IS in response to your point.

They were councils, but not ecumenical, because the entire Church Catholic did not participate, including most or the patriarchate.

Absolutely the Church was present. Those who leave aren’t in the Church any longer. When “Patriarchs” leave, they no longer are “IN” the Church. When Judas left, did that effect the Church from being one? Nope! Did it mean the Church wasn’t complete? Nope!

But again, that has nothing to do with the point I am making., being, the protest was not against the Church

If this has nothing to do with the Church, Why is “Lutheran” and “Protestant” even used together in the language of the Diet? AND what/who are they against in that episode?

[JonNC]

Those authorities you speak of were Lutheran. They already by definition were Luther’s followers. Any executions you speak of, were then done by Lutherans

No they weren’t. The majority were Roman Catholics trying to reinstate the limits place on the Evangelical Catholics by the Edict of Worms.

Today in Catholic History – The Second Diet of Speyer and the beginnings...

There were many reformers executed going back to Huss. Neither the Lutherans nor Rome had clean hands.

Besides, the Church did not allow anyone in the Church to execute anyone. That was condemned in the 13th century by an ecumenical council

Then clearly the protest was of civil authorities, and not against the RC Church.

Absolutely the Church was present.

Part of the Church.

Those who leave aren’t in the Church any longer. When “Patriarchs” leave, they no longer are “IN” the Church. When Judas left, did that effect the Church from being one? Nope! Did it mean the Church wasn’t complete? Nope!

And they say the same about Rome. I don’t have a fog in that hunt. That’s a thousand year Schism Rome is party to. Fix it, and the entire Church Catholic will be better.
To compare your fellow Christians to Judas is contrary to your own communion’s teachings.

[steve-b]

Those authorities you speak of were Lutheran. They already by definition were Luther’s followers. Any executions you speak of, were then done by Lutherans

No they weren’t. The majority were Roman Catholics trying to reinstate the limits place on the Evangelical Catholics by the Edict of Worms.

No No No
Those are Protestants you refer to. Your link said so. I quote "This protest would result in the term “Protestant” to be applied first of all to Lutherans and then to all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians."

That said, this points specifically to Religious groups. As stated Protestant is identified as all those who are non-Catholic… starting with Lutherans…

https://www.google.com/amp/s/catholicunderthehood.com/2010/04/25/today-in-catholic-history-second-diet-of-speyer-and-the-beginnings-of-protestantism/amp/

There were many reformers executed going back to Huss. Neither the Lutherans nor Rome had clean hands.

I posted canon 3 from the Lateran council in the year 1215. 300 years before all this. If someone in the Church goes off the rails, they can’t point back to the Church for permission / approval for their deeds in executing anyone. The Church has been against such actions consistently and they put it in writing for anyone to see, who is interested…

Then clearly the protest was of civil authorities, and not against the RC Church.

If this was purely civil, why the religious groups references?

Absolutely the Church was present.

Part of the Church.

Nope! The successor to Peter + All those fully united to Peter’s successor, = the Church.

Those who leave aren’t in the Church any longer. When “Patriarchs” leave, they no longer are “IN” the Church. When Judas left, did that effect the Church from being one? Nope! Did it mean the Church wasn’t complete? Nope!

And they say the same about Rome. I don’t have a fog in that hunt. That’s a thousand year Schism Rome is party to. Fix it, and the entire Church Catholic will be better.
To compare your fellow Christians to Judas is contrary to your own communion’s teachings.

The Catholic Church was sitting at the table at last supper. Judas left the table, he broke communion, to do his dastardly deed. AND Jesus never promised a Judas free Church. If all those separated from Our Lord’s Church stay away, and NEVER return, that still doesn’t effect the Catholic Church in which Jesus promised, not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.

[Roseeurekacross]

we have lots of respect for Anglicans here and even do ecumenical services and joint christmas carols with Anglicans. We get invited to their things and they get invited to ours.

Its pretty awesome