Do you mind being labelled Protestant?

[Albion]

Now about "non-denominational?"

But this term is normally taken to mean that one is a Protestant who belongs to a congregation that is unaffiliated with any particular Protestant denomination, such as Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc.

 

[Vicomte13]

Not to disagree with anyone, but the issue seems to be two-fold. There is what people prefer to be called themselves, but there also is how society and history classify people according to major divisions of Christianity.

Anyone of us might prefer to be thought of as a Reformed Catholic or as a Born-again Evangelical, but it's not wrong for librarians, the government, news organizations, etc. to classify the same people as Catholic or Protestant (or as something else). Those are accurate terms and not insults.

From my perspective, "Catholic" means "in a church that is in union with Rome". Anybody who is a "Catholic" has the same religion as me, even if they don't really believe the same things I do.

"Orthodox" means one of two religions: Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox, and the differences between the two of them are important enough that they are two separate religions. So I always distinguish between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

"Protestant" means the rest of the Christian Churches, because they all came out of the stream of Churches that started with Martin Luther's revolt. The Protestant Churches are as different from each other as different can be, yet they all had their root in Luther's act.

So my nomenclature is a bit genus-species naturalistic - Kingdom - Theistica, Phylum - Monotheistica, Order - Catholica, Orthodoxa Constantipolitanus, Orthodoxa Orientalis, Protestantis, etc.

I do know that some people claim their church is a non-Orthodox, non-Catholic, non-Protestant Church that has gone back to the time of Christ, hidden. I think that's not true and consider these churches to be Protestant, but I recognize they don't like being called that so I only call them Protestants when I want to annoy them.

Essentially, then, the world breaks down into the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Russian, Greek, Syriac, etc.), the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Church of the East, etc.), and the Protestants (everything else, from Anabaptists to Mormons).

 

[Halbhh]

Many, not a few, of us are such that we'd be quite comfortable in a catholic service or in a methodist service or in a ____ service, and that part does not matter, so long as the pastor seems to really have read through the gospel carefully, and really does believe, so long as the people are actually many or most doing "love one another" meaning more than only their own friends. (You may be curious, so I'll tell you I've been in I think about 6 full services at catholic churches if you include a confirmation service that had all the pieces of a service itself also. I think this was 5 different churches. Altogether in my life I think I've been in full services in about 12 to 15 different types of churches if you include the few less common ones like the "Church of God" and even a Quaker service. This was not at all sight seeing nor exploration, but I went to seek the Lord usually. I had already learned when young that different churches worship God and preach messages from Christ and the New Testament.)

 

[GillDouglas]

Yes I do. because I'm Catholic.
But my question goes to "Protestants". You'd prefer to be known as a Christian, I imagine. That your relationship with Jesus is the most important thing. You are a follower of Christ, so naturally "Christian" is the best label?
I guess the word "Protestant" has negative connotations, does it? You would also prefer your denom. specific label as well?
I personally prefer to be called Christian than Catholic. However I don't accept all Protestant theology, so I guess I have to be happy with "Catholic Christian."

I prefer Reformed Christian or Presbyterian. But I think calling myself a Presbyterian can be misleading because there are many different Presbyterian churches (PCA, RPC, ARP, and PC[USA]). PC(USA) is the largest, and because of their vast different theology we try not to associate with them. I would go to a Reformed Baptist church over a PC(USA) church, if they'd let my baby sprinkling ideas in the door.

 

[Albion]

From my perspective, "Catholic" means "in a church that is in union with Rome". Anybody who is a "Catholic" has the same religion as me, even if they don't really believe the same things I do.

As we've learned, each person has an opinion about what these words mean. However, Catholic also includes the Old Catholics, the Independent Catholics and, in the opinion of most academics, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Catholics.

"Protestant" means the rest of the Christian Churches, because they all came out of the stream of Churches that started with Martin Luther's revolt.

Well, you cannot have it both ways--narrowing "Catholic" to one denomination only, while putting all Protestants under the same mantle.

I do know that some people claim their church is a non-Orthodox, non-Catholic, non-Protestant Church that has gone back to the time of Christ, hidden. I think that's not true and consider these churches to be Protestant, but I recognize they don't like being called that so I only call them Protestants when I want to annoy them.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any church that actually does that, unless it's the Landmark Baptists who constitute a very small portion of the Baptists.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I read, absorb, love, and try my best to follow the Word of God. How someone else chooses to label me is of no consequence to my relationship with God or my eternal salvation. Therefore, I couldn't possibly care less about it.

 

[Vicomte13]

As we've learned, each person has an opinion about what these words mean. However, Catholic also includes the Old Catholics, the Independent Catholics and, in the opinion of most academics, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Catholics.

Well, you cannot have it both ways--narrowing "Catholic" to one denomination only, while putting all Protestants under the same mantle.

Yes I can. If the Church does not have the Papal flag in it, if the Pope is not the supreme human ruler of the Church, it's not the Catholic Church, even if it calls itself "catholic". The fact of having a foreign monarch at the head of their church is not a detail. Catholics have lost their lives over that fact for centuries in various countries whose governments are jealous of authority. Still are, in places like China.

To Catholics, that the heir of Peter is the head of the Church (not "first among equals" or any similar reformulation of the words that removes the final binding authority from Peter and Peter's heir), is a commandment of God, from Jesus himself, not a man-made tradition.

It's the irreducible difference between Catholics and everybody else, including the Protestants and Orthodox, and Chinese political leaders, who style themselves "catholic" but who are not.

"Independent Catholic" is an utter contradiction in terms. To be Catholic means to be part of a hierarchical church that is ultimately subject to the spiritual command authority of the Pope. Always has.

 

[Albion]

Yes I can. If the Church does not have the Papal flag in it, if the Pope is not the supreme human ruler of the Church, it's not the Catholic Church, even if it calls itself "catholic". The fact of having a foreign monarch at the head of their church is not a detail. Catholics have lost their lives over that fact for centuries in various countries whose governments are jealous of authority. Still are, in places like China.

To Catholics, that the heir of Peter is the head of the Church (not "first among equals" or any similar reformulation of the words that removes the final binding authority from Peter and Peter's heir), is a commandment of God, from Jesus himself, not a man-made tradition.

It's the irreducible difference between Catholics and everybody else, including the Protestants and Orthodox, and Chinese political leaders, who style themselves "catholic" but who are not.

"Independent Catholic" is an utter contradiction in terms. To be Catholic means to be part of a hierarchical church that is ultimately subject to the spiritual command authority of the Pope. Always has.

Nothing in that statement refutes what I said about no one being able to have it both ways, though.

 

[Xeena]

Didn't think there were many Southern Baptists in Rhode Island (the only majority Catholic state)!

LOL I guess you had to be there There's only one state that has Parishes rather than Counties to this day. It's a thing called history.
Cultural Catholicism in Cajun-Creole Louisiana

I have no clue what statistics are now. It wasn't the point ykwim.

 

[bekkilyn]

Protestant is simply one of the three main divisions of Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. While I don't feel insulted by someone calling me a Protestant because it's just a classification, it would be a bit odd for it to be used as either an insult or a mark of distinction where I live because Catholics and Orthodox are in the minority, so chances are when you meet other Christians, they are going to be from one of the Protestant denominations. I suppose if I lived surrounded by Catholics, they might call me "the Protestant" in order to distinguish me from themselves, but I've never personally experienced it even in the rarer cases when I've been amidst a bunch of Catholics. Many Catholics I've met haven't been particularly religious enough to care one way or another, or just go to whatever church is closest to them or wherever their friends are going, whether it is Catholic or not.

Protestant really doesn't mean much other than not-Catholic or not-Orthodox though because there can be some fairly big doctrinal differences between Protestant denominations and churches. In such cases, distinguishing between actual denominations is more helpful.

Christian isn't always a good descriptive label either because a number of people seem to use it to describe the cultural heritage of the place or group of people where they were born rather than to describe their actual beliefs.

 

[Vicomte13]

LOL I guess you had to be there There's only one state that has Parishes rather than Counties to this day. It's a thing called history.
Cultural Catholicism in Cajun-Creole Louisiana

I have no clue what statistics are now. It wasn't the point ykwim.

Yeah, I can see how down around the Big Easy Catholic, Baptist, French, English, White, Black, up, down - it all sorta gets all mixed where the First Commandment is "Laissez les bon temps rouler!"

 

[Vicomte13]

Nothing in that statement refutes what I said about no one being able to have it both ways, though.

Of course I can. I'm a Catholic. We always do things our way. Made everybody else too, when the Kings were Catholic. I understand from reading history that it has not been one of our more endearing qualities.

 

[Albion]

Of course I can. I'm a Catholic. We always do things our way. Made everybody else too, when the Kings were Catholic. I understand from reading history that it has not been one of our more endearing qualities.

That's one of the two ways.

 

[Vicomte13]

LOL I guess you had to be there There's only one state that has Parishes rather than Counties to this day. It's a thing called history.
Cultural Catholicism in Cajun-Creole Louisiana

I have no clue what statistics are now. It wasn't the point ykwim.

I read the article. So, you have what they call "yard grottoes" (we call them "bathtub Marys") down in Cajun country too. Only place I've ever seen a lot of those is Northern Michigan (another old haunt of the French).

 

[OpenYourBibles]

Yes I do. because I'm Catholic.
But my question goes to "Protestants". You'd prefer to be known as a Christian, I imagine. That your relationship with Jesus is the most important thing. You are a follower of Christ, so naturally "Christian" is the best label?
I guess the word "Protestant" has negative connotations, does it? You would also prefer your denom. specific label as well?
I personally prefer to be called Christian than Catholic. However I don't accept all Protestant theology, so I guess I have to be happy with "Catholic Christian."

I have two problems with both the word Protestant and Christian - they really don't mean a whole lot in today's world - especially in America.

Everyone claims to be "christian" or "protestant" yet there are hundreds of "ways to be baptized" if your particular denomination even believes in baptism, hundreds of ideas on what it takes for an individual to get to heaven, hundred of patterns of proper "christian" or "protestant" behavior - so what exactly does it mean to be "christian" or "protestant"... not much in my eyes.

My second problem and perhaps my bigger problem is the word protestant draws direct reference to the Catholic church - Essentially my church exist only as a religion who protested and broke away from catholicism - and that is not the case. In fact I would argue, with anyone, Catholicism is the first protestant religion in that they broke away from, diluted, and bastardized the beliefs of the new testament church. Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against the New Testament Church - yet Catholics and Protestants alike have been prevailed against repeatedly for centuries, so I believe in the church that was established in Acts 2, and who has remained the same.

 

[Halbhh]

....the heir of Peter is the head of the Church ..

Well, since many of us have read Christ say:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

---
Can you understand how instead of simply "vicar" or "apostolistic succession" if instead you want to use the wording: "the heir of Peter is the head of the Church" with the words "heir" and the word "head" it really truly does make us feel something wrong is happening?

It's like trying to take *more* authority that only the authority Christ granted. Can you see how this wording leads to that sense of meaning? We think of Christ as the "head" of His church of course.

 

[Vicomte13]

Well, since many of us have read Christ say:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

---
Can you understand how instead of simply "vicar" or "apostolistic succession" if instead you want to use the wording: "the heir of Peter is the head of the Church" with the words "heir" and the word "head" it really truly does make us feel something wrong is happening?

It's like trying to take *more* authority that only the authority Christ granted. Can you see how this wording leads to that sense of meaning? We think of Christ as the "head" of His church of course.

I understand all of the objections. I have considered them over the years. I reject them, of course.
Christ was and remains the Head. But he left the earth. Knowing that he would, he left a Church (not a written word). That Church was hierarchical. There were 72 disciples. There were 12 Apostles who were his inner circle. There was one Apostle, Peter, whom Jesus made the head of the Twelve Apostles.

As long as Jesus was there, he was the Head. But he put Peter in charge of the Apostles, the Apostles in charge of the disciples, and the disciples responsible to go spread the word and charity. He sent the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, to stand with the Church and guide its leaders. Peter was the leader during his lifetime. New orders were appointed by the Church: deacons, not a thing that Jesus instituted, instituted by the Church to assist. The structure of things, the sacraments, how the Church made new clergy as the time went on and it became clear that Jesus wasn't coming back that generation - all of these things were decided within the Church, and the Church was headed by Peter.

Peter went to Rome, capital of the Empire, the fitting place for the head of the Church to be. He was killed there, and each of his successors for several generations was martyred. To be the Pope in Pagan Rome was to step up to die in a brutal way. They were all executed, the first many, many Popes. The Papal See was consecrated by the blood of a long succession of martyrs, precisely because of what it was: the seat of leadership in Christ's Church in the very heart of the violent pagan empire that executed Christ.

So yes, I understand all of the arguments from the Biblical language. But I do not believe that the Bible is the final word on anything. The Bible contains the revelation up to that time. But Jesus left a Church, not a Bible, and the revelation has gone on by and through the Church since then. To cut things off with the first century book and look no further is the same error the Jews made with their book.

Obviously you do not and will not agree with this. The reason is simple: to you, the Bible is the ultimate source of the authority and revelation, but to Catholics, the Church is (and one of the earliest products of the Church was the Bible - indeed, that's why the Bible has authority. Jesus made the Church, the Church wrote the Bible.)

Of course Protestants will never, ever see eye to eye with Catholics over any of this. You believe that God wrote the Bible. We believe that God made the Church, and the Church wrote the Bible, so the Church is what was revealed, and the Bible is a tradition of the Church. So we look at what happened in the Second, and Third, and Twelfth, and Twentieth Centuries and see new revelations of God, through the Church. You cannot accept any authority past 96 AD.

Yes, I understand what you think about the Pope and why. And I think you're wrong.
You think the opposite. That's where the issue will remain during our lives. After our deaths we'll find out which, or if either, was right.

 

[ExodusMe]

I identify as a protestant, but I only publicize it on this forum because it is relevant to the discussions. If I was going to evangelize someone I wouldn't tell them I am a protestant or something. In a nutshell, our camps are only relevant to Christian's (which kind of make them not relevant at all?).

 

[Halbhh]

I understand all of the objections. I have considered them over the years. I reject them, of course.
Christ was and remains the Head. But he left the earth. Knowing that he would, he left a Church (not a written word). That Church was hierarchical. There were 72 disciples. There were 12 Apostles who were his inner circle. There was one Apostle, Peter, whom Jesus made the head of the Twelve Apostles.

As long as Jesus was there, he was the Head. But he put Peter in charge of the Apostles, the Apostles in charge of the disciples, and the disciples responsible to go spread the word and charity. He sent the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, to stand with the Church and guide its leaders. Peter was the leader during his lifetime. New orders were appointed by the Church: deacons, not a thing that Jesus instituted, instituted by the Church to assist. The structure of things, the sacraments, how the Church made new clergy as the time went on and it became clear that Jesus wasn't coming back that generation - all of these things were decided within the Church, and the Church was headed by Peter.

Peter went to Rome, capital of the Empire, the fitting place for the head of the Church to be. He was killed there, and each of his successors for several generations was martyred. To be the Pope in Pagan Rome was to step up to die in a brutal way. They were all executed, the first many, many Popes. The Papal See was consecrated by the blood of a long succession of martyrs, precisely because of what it was: the seat of leadership in Christ's Church in the very heart of the violent pagan empire that executed Christ.

So yes, I understand all of the arguments from the Biblical language. But I do not believe that the Bible is the final word on anything. The Bible contains the revelation up to that time. But Jesus left a Church, not a Bible, and the revelation has gone on by and through the Church since then. To cut things off with the first century book and look no further is the same error the Jews made with their book.

Obviously you do not and will not agree with this. The reason is simple: to you, the Bible is the ultimate source of the authority and revelation, but to Catholics, the Church is (and one of the earliest products of the Church was the Bible - indeed, that's why the Bible has authority. Jesus made the Church, the Church wrote the Bible.)

Of course Protestants will never, ever see eye to eye with Catholics over any of this. You believe that God wrote the Bible. We believe that God made the Church, and the Church wrote the Bible, so the Church is what was revealed, and the Bible is a tradition of the Church. So we look at what happened in the Second, and Third, and Twelfth, and Twentieth Centuries and see new revelations of God, through the Church. You cannot accept any authority past 96 AD.

Yes, I understand what you think about the Pope and why. And I think you're wrong.
You think the opposite. That's where the issue will remain during our lives. After our deaths we'll find out which, or if either, was right.

To 'understand what you think about the Pope' would require....a bit, at least, of knowing what is in the heart of another. How? But, I'll simply tell you. First, I think Francis is genuinely a believer and is clearly doing many things Christ said to do, thus a good example, and a good bishop. Next, as Christ plainly told us, those He has to be managers under Him are "servants", and this is another place Francis shows correctly a following of Christ, in that Francis acts like a servant, and thus seems authentically what he ought to be, which is encouraging. It's similar at least in part for some other presumptions you said above about what I think -- it's going to be far more accurate to merely ask me.

But, I wonder....if Francis would consider himself the "head of the Church" as you were wording it, though? Even though you used the past tense that "Christ was the head" don't you yourself honestly admit and think that it should be present tense? What is a "servant"?

(Please be aware that for me (not necessarily for others) it would be a sin to claim I'm a "protestant", as that would be a modifier on 'Christian', which I believe is my only correct allegiance. I'm no more anti-catholic than you are. I'm not anti-protestant either, etc. I'm aware that some might try to make me out to be a 'protestant', but that's merely a mistake. But mistakes are human.)

 

[Vicomte13]

But, I wonder....if Francis would consider himself the "head of the Church" as you were wording it,

The Pope's formal title is "Servus servorum Dei" - servant of the servants of God. Francis has obviously taken that title to heart. The Borgia Popes of old? Markedly less so.