Is The Word "protestant" Still Applicable?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1271726' date='May 12 2007, 02:11 AM'](as an aside, my favorite church name: The Union Separate Baptist Church. This was the historic name of a Baptist church I attended for a while. They formed around the time of the Civil War, hence the "Union" part of the name, but it still always made me laugh.)[/quote]

My favorite denom name: [b]Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist.[/b]

Runners-up:

[b]The Church of God with Signs Following[/b] - the name applied to Pentecostal holiness churches that engage in the practice of snake handling and drinking poison in their religious worship services, based on Mark 16:17-18.

(Shoulda asked Budge if she handled snakes and drank poison.)

[b]Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God[/b]

[b]Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of Baptists[/b]

Likos

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1271726' date='May 12 2007, 12:11 AM']I think Protestant is still an apt term, despite the fact that the majority aren't actively protesting.

I think it speaks to the historic roots of these denominations, which are still there even if some non-denominational Christians don't claim them or even know of them.

And, as Likos said, there are an ever-increasing number of denominations, many of which are founded in protest over something even if it wasn't the Catholic church.
(as an aside, my favorite church name: The Union Separate Baptist Church. This was the historic name of a Baptist church I attended for a while. They formed around the time of the Civil War, hence the "Union" part of the name, but it still always made me laugh.)[/quote]

i agree. these fancy labels help to keep the youth and baby christians ignorant to the history of christianity. they become completely ignorant of the catholic church, and their parents and those in the know would like to keep it this way. they don't want their kids asking them what exactly it is they are protesting. my favorite quote, "Catholics are Christian?"

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1271646' date='May 11 2007, 09:20 PM'][b][size=3]Webster:[/size] [/b]

[u][b]Heretic[/b][/u]

1. A professed believer who maintains beliefs contrary to those accepted by his or her church.

2. A baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

[u][b]Heresy:[/b][/u] religious opinion or doctrine at variance with the accepted doctrine.

I think the Church makes a distinction among those who rejected the Truth and were involved in the original heresies of Protestantism, and those who, through no fault of their own, are born into that belief system and remain in it. Emphasis on [b]through no fault of their own[/b]. Willful and knowing rejection of the Church and its teachings is considered heresy.

However, a person who is baptized Catholic and dissents from the Church's teaching is designated a heretic in canon law.

Father G, please correct me if I am wrong.

Likos[/quote]


thanks for that. protestant, heretic, same to me. as harsh as it sounds, it's the truth.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1271741' date='May 12 2007, 02:32 AM']i agree. these fancy labels help to keep the youth and baby christians ignorant to the history of christianity. they become completely ignorant of the catholic church, and their parents and those in the know would like to keep it this way. they don't want their kids asking them what exactly it is they are protesting. my favorite quote, "Catholics are Christian?"[/quote]
Totally agree ... the further from the label, the further from the questions. And I think that's a bad thing for all involved, because you SHOULD know the history of your own faith.

[quote name='johnnydigit' post='1271741' date='May 12 2007, 02:32 AM']thanks for that. protestant, heretic, same to me. as harsh as it sounds, it's the truth.[/quote]
it's important to distinguish between material and formal heresy here.

[Paladin]

According to the papal bull Cantate Domino via the Council of Florence:
[quote]...after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they [the law]could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.[/quote]
That makes me and most males on this board anathema.

Point being: anathemazation and heresey are usually temporal directives. Clearly at the time of the Council of Florence, people were circumcising with attention to Mosaic law rather than medical knowledge. It was necessary to declare heretics those who promolgated that practice. Now that few Catholic practice Mosaic law, the anathemization doesn't really apply. Same deal with the Council of Trent's anathemization of Luther and his followers: they were actively choosing to reject the Church. While there are some that still do that - and they are still rightly called heretics - there are others that have no beef with the Church, and the Church recognizes that. Check out [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html"]Unitatis Redintegratio[/url], the decree of ecumenism to see what the Church really teaches about Christian brethren separated from the See of Peter.

My consideration of classification is really more about how to bring them back than how to properly dismiss them. When you're talking about certain Protestants like Budge's ilk, your strategy is likely to use a lot of apologetics, history education, and counter points. When evangelizing the "Bible Christian," I think you could be a lot more focused on opening up the Scriptures to the truth of the Church's teaching instead of making parries and ripostes.

[Aloysius]

most American males. From what I understand circumcision is still uncommon in Europe. and besides, it'd be the parents and doctors, not the actual males themselves if it was done to them as babes (if you went to get a circumcision done as an adult, and didn't have medical reasons for it, then you've anathematized yourself)

That anathema is still in effect for anyone who would "observe" circumcision out of religious or cultural reasons. medical reasons were not in its scope, because no such idea existd at the time, and Pius XII answered that medical reasons were permittable. I do believe that quote comes from the Bull of Union with the Copts, which means they were likely arguing against doing it in order to be able to blend in culturally with the muslims when they said "whether or not one puts hope in it". I personally disagree with the medical reasons, as do a growing number of health professionals from what I understand, but that's a whole other debate... dig it up if you like, it's been done before. hehehe

Anyway, yes, it does come down to culpability for rejecting the Church for present day followers of these heretical sects that were raised in them; and many who are raised in them do not have that culpability, if that's your point.

But anathemas made about this or that principal of faith or morals by an ecumenical council would remain in force today.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1271736' date='May 12 2007, 03:07 AM']My favorite denom name: [b]Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptist.[/b]

Runners-up:

[b]The Church of God with Signs Following[/b] - the name applied to Pentecostal holiness churches that engage in the practice of snake handling and drinking poison in their religious worship services, based on Mark 16:17-18.

(Shoulda asked Budge if she handled snakes and drank poison.)

[b]Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God[/b]

[b]Duck River (and Kindred) Associations of Baptists[/b]

Likos[/quote]
And what if the Foursquare becomes Twosquare, are they not protestant anymore?...What about Onesquare????? Maybe they are protesting the protesters. What do we call them?????? And after that what should we call them????Then after those, what do we call them????..............................I know.....we'll call them RETURNING CATHOLICS! Welcome Home!

Edited May 12, 2007 by jckinsman

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1271837' date='May 12 2007, 09:48 AM']While there are some that still do that - and they are still rightly called heretics - there are others that have no beef with the Church, and the Church recognizes that. Check out [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html"]Unitatis Redintegratio[/url], the decree of ecumenism to see what the Church really teaches about Christian brethren separated from the See of Peter.[/quote]

The link was helpful and informative. Thank you for posting it.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1272007' date='May 12 2007, 04:12 PM']The link was helpful and informative. Thank you for posting it.[/quote]
Read and enjoyed!

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Nadezhda' post='1272007' date='May 12 2007, 04:12 PM']The link was helpful and informative. Thank you for posting it.[/quote]
I printed it out and enjoyed it!

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1271922' date='May 12 2007, 02:23 PM']And what if the Foursquare becomes Twosquare, are they not protestant anymore?...What about Onesquare????? Maybe they are protesting the protesters. What do we call them?????? And after that what should we call them????Then after those, what do we call them????..............................I know.....we'll call them RETURNING CATHOLICS! Welcome Home![/quote]
:

[Anthony]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1271650' date='May 11 2007, 11:23 PM']I still protest the Catholic Church, not out of hatred, but out of a desire to know God and do what is right.

Democracy is a messy thing, but it has allowed God to give people a real chance to find him, and not be forced.

How many of the billions of Catholics do you really think have gotten into heaven since its inception?

How many of the millions, maybe even billions of Protestants have gotten into heaven since its inception?

How many pentecostals have gotten into heaven?

Who knows, only God knows.

According to Akalyte, all Catholics probably, and no protestant or other has ever entered into God's glorious grace in heaven.

Such an open mind Akalyte. But I've come to expect that from you.

BTW, the Catholic Church isn't the whore of Babylon, though she controls it. Benedict is probably her lap puppy![/quote]

Hey, that is extremely rude and inappropriate. Debate, but do not insult. Such lack of charity has no place on phatmass.

[RandomProddy]

"Protest" is derived from "Pro" meaning for, and "Testuare" meaning testament, or testimony.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='RandomProddy' post='1274903' date='May 16 2007, 07:41 AM']"Protest" is derived from "Pro" meaning for, and "Testuare" meaning testament, or testimony.[/quote]

That's an interesting thought... so if you just shift the meaning of "Protestant" to say you're "promoting testimony of the Gospel" instead of "protesting Catholicism," then... well... guess that means we're all Protestants! Sweet! I can't wait to tell my Baptist friends!

[goldenchild17]

I believe Vatican II has addressed this question directly in one of its documents (I'd have to go and look up which one). I'm pretty sure it decided that Protestant was no longer a term that was applicable. That said, I agree with Akalyte.