Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Second Volume - Meaning of "Protestant" ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 05/04/2010 8:58:31 PM PDT by GonzoII

Radio Replies Second Volume
Meaning of "Protestant"

214. What is your attitude towards the Protestant Church?

As with Greek Orthodoxy, so with Protestantism — there is no such thing in reality as the Protestant Church. Protestantism is a generic name covering many different sects which agree in protesting against the claims of the Catholic Church.

215. That Protestant means one who protests against Rome is a popularly accepted idea, but it is erroneous.

The Rev. Dr. Goudge, a Protestant, and Regius professor of Divinity at Oxford, writes, "The number of meanings given to the word Protestant is astonishing, as the great Oxford dictionary will show us. It suggests a person whose main interest is opposition to Rome, and possibly there may be such persons. The best use of the word today may be the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox use, in which a Protestant means a Western Christian who remains outside the Roman Church."

216. Naturally we protest against the errors of Rome.

I deny that what Protestants think to be the erroneous doctrines of Rome are really erroneous, if indeed they be the teachings of the Catholic Church. I add that last condition because many doctrines are attributed to Rome which Rome has never taught. In this case, Protestants simply do not understand the religion they attack. It must be noted, too, that Protestants are anything but agreed amongst themselves as to what should be condemned in Catholic teaching. What one Protestant condemns, another Protestant will vehemently defend.

217. But in reality the word Protestant is positive and means that one witnesses for the great ideals of the Gospel. The prefix "pro" means "for," while "testor" means "I witness."

That is a modern interpretation of the word which departs from the historical sense.

218. In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible we find the words, "Quos protestantes illi audire nolebant," meaning, "They would not hear them when they protested." 24:19.

Those words refer to the ill will of the Jews who would not listen to the prophets sent by God to protest against their evil practices. They have no reference to the meaning of the word Protestant as applied to the Reformation. It is a dreadful anachronism to connect a word used in a fourth century translation of the Old Testament with a Protestantism which arose only in the sixteenth century. No one could lay that St. Jerome had the Protestant Reformation in mind when he translated the Old Testament into Latin so many centuries earlier.

219. Historically the word was derived from the celebrated "Protest" read by the German princes at the Diet of Spires.

That is correct. Here, of course, we approach the real problem. It is the historic meaning of the word according to the events of the period when it arose that really counts, not possible meanings of the word in more remote ages.

220. The German princes said, "We protest and declare that we neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed Decree in anything contrary to God, to His holy Word, to our right conscience, and to the salvation of our souls."

So spoke the German princes. But what did the Decree demand? These princes had taken advantage of the religious revolt of Luther to secure the political independence of their States. Naturally, in turn, they supported Lutheranism as a great force amongst their people for the breaking of old ties; and they commenced the suppression of Catholic worship in their domains. Now the Decree of the Diet of Spires granted religious liberty to such as had already embraced Lutheranism in the States of the German princes, but demanded toleration for Catholics dwelling within their boundaries. The Lutheran princes protested that they would not grant toleration to Catholics, and said that the religion of their people must be the same as that of their princes. "Cuius regio, illius religio," said these princes. "Whoever is the ruler, his must be the religion." In other words, the German princes demanded the right to impose whatever religion they might please upon their subjects. And their protest was against any obligation to tolerate Catholics. The word Protestant, therefore, according to its historical and religious meaning, was born of a denial of freedom of conscience; and those who thus protested against liberty of worship for Catholics were termed Protestants.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: radiorepliesvoltwo
"As with Greek Orthodoxy, so with Protestantism — there is no
such thing in reality as the Protestant Church."

I think this needs to be qualified:

(See also "Historical Context of Radio Replies" below the following)


Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the

oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?


The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these

Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of

the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which

they remain linked to us by very close bonds”[13],

they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”[14],

and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.[15]

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these

Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”.[16]

However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is

the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement

to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles,

these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as

particular churches.[17]

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of

universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter

and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.[18]


Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council

not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born

out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?


According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic

succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a

constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which,

specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not

preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19]

cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned

Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and

confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation,

and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June

29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila


[13] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.

[14] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.

[15] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954  ff.

[16] Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.

[17] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.

[20] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.


Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

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

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

1 posted on 05/04/2010 8:58:31 PM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; Graing; bboop; ...
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”


2 posted on 05/04/2010 8:59:03 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

The Radio Replies Series: Volume Two

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume Two: Proof of God's Existence
Radio Replies Volume Two: God's Nature
Radio Replies Volume Two: Supreme Control Over All Things and the Problem of Suffering and Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume Two: Destiny of Man/Death
Radio Replies Volume Two: Immortality of Man's Soul & Pre-existence Denied
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Human Free Will
Radio Replies Volume Two: Determinism Absurd

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume Two: Necessity of Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Salvation of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume Two: Voice of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: Religious Racketeers
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divine Revelation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Revealed Mysteries
Radio Replies Volume Two: Existence of Miracles

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume Two: Gospels Historical
Radio Replies Volume Two: Missing Books of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Bible Inspired
Radio Replies Volume Two: Biblical Account of Creation
Radio Replies Volume Two: New Testament Problems

Radio Replies Volume Two: Supposed Contradictions in Sacred Scripture

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Source of Christian Teaching
Radio Replies Volume Two: Jewish Rejecton of Christ
Radio Replies Volume Two: Christianity a New Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Rational Foundation for Belief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of Unbelief

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Divisions Amongst Christians
Radio Replies Volume Two: Schisms Unjustified
Radio Replies Volume Two: Facing the Problem
Radio Replies Volume Two: Wrong Approach
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is One Religion as Good as Another?

Radio Replies Volume Two: Obligation of Inquiry
Radio Replies Volume Two: Charity and Tolerance

Chapter Seven: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Meaning of "Protestant"

3 posted on 05/04/2010 9:00:55 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I think part of the popularity of the word “evangelical” is simply that the protestant term suggests that you define yourself by what you are not and that simply doesn’t apply to most non-catholic Christians. To define your Christian walk by someone else’s is pretty thin stuff and most people don’t, its not how most people see themselves or their Christian walk. Hence, as I say, the increased preference for the “evangelical” term rather than “protestant”.

4 posted on 05/04/2010 9:35:44 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

I dare say your definition of the meaning and usage of the word Protestant is only an issue with Catholics.

Protestants, such as myself, don’t give it a second thought.

All we care about is if our hearts are right with God, has he saved us, are we born-again in spirit by the Merits of the Sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Has he changed our hearts, making all things new and old things have passed away?

Has he given us power over the sinfullness of our lives?

The answer to a true Protestant, is yes to all the questions above.

This is all that matters, are we right with God, and a true Protestant is.

5 posted on 05/04/2010 10:08:40 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

All I can add to your remarks is that I find it laughable that anyone should think that God will judge them by the religious ‘club’ they belong to, regardless of their sincerity of belief, love for Him, or how they conduct themselves in this life.

6 posted on 05/04/2010 10:32:26 PM PDT by ARepublicanForAllReasons (President Zero, walking in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ARepublicanForAllReasons
All I can add to your remarks is that I find it laughable that anyone should think that God will judge them by the religious ‘club’ they belong to, regardless of their sincerity of belief, love for Him, or how they conduct themselves in this life.


When we stand at the judgement bar of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is not going to care one whit whether or not you, I, or any other person was a Catholic, or a Protestant.

All he is going to be concerned with, is whether or not your name or my name or any other person's name is written in the Book of Life.

The only way to get your name in the Book of Life is to be born again.

Being a Catholic does not get your name in the Book of Life, I've known many Catholics that were out and out unrepentant sinners.

God does not allow unrepentant sinners into heavan.

The same things can be said about Protestants, Being a Protestant does not get your name in the Book of Life, many Protestants are unrepentant sinners and also, will not get into heavan as a result.

You only get to heavan if you are truly born again by the Blood of Jesus, changed from the inside out, where all things are new, old things have passed away.
7 posted on 05/04/2010 10:41:48 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
a Protestant means a Western Christian who remains outside the Roman Church

That's it.

8 posted on 05/05/2010 5:29:33 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson