Protestant Revolt : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

In my history classes, the term "protestant reformation" was used. But I've come across lately of the term Protestant Revolt. I think this is the correct term for that time in history. Shouldn't Catholics use this term more often or is such a use detrimental to the Catholic Church or to ecumenism?

-- james (, October 09, 2003


"Protestant Reformation" is the "historically correct" term, and the one you will find in all secular sources, and of course in Protestant sources. "Protestant Revolt" is used by those, primarily Catholic, including myself, who are concerned about accuracy in historical terminology. It is true that the Catholic Church at the time of Martin Luther was badly in need of administrative - NOT doctrinal - reform. It is also true that Luther's original purpose was to bring about needed reforms in the Church he knew and loved, the Church in which he was an ordained clergyman - the Holy Catholic Church. He was certainly not the only one who noticed the need for reform! Many clergymen and others, aware of administrative abuses that were occurring, were working diligently to bring about such reform. One thing alone sets Luther apart from these others, namely his choice to abandon the Church of the living God, to denounce the authority of the Pope, and ultimately to set up his own church, based on principles never before heard of in the history of Christianity. Formation of a new church was not his initial aim, but once you cut yourself off from the pillar and foundation of truth, and attempt to replace divinely ordained Church authority with a new approach to Christian belief, error is inevitable, and before long a new church did indeed evolve as a result of rejection of 1,500 year old Christian doctrines, and introduction of new doctrines of Luther's own fabrication. This was plainly a revolt against the Catholic Church, and specifically against the Pope, and Luther made no effort to disguise that fact. In the meantime the Church was indeed undergoing needed reform from within, not because of any effort on Luther's part, since he had already jumped ship. It is therefore a curious quirk of historical parlance that "The Reformers" has come to designate those who played no part whatsoever in the reform of the Church, but who rather DEformed the God-given structure of the Church, and the age-old doctrines of Christianity received from Christ Himself and the Apostles, thereby unleashing upon the world an epidemic of dissention, division, and doctrinal chaos which continues to this day.

-- Paul M. (, October 09, 2003.

Paul, Thank you for your great insight. So, is it correct to say that Protentantism is a heresy? I know that Catholics should call Protestants as "separated brethren," according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church; but are they also heretics?

-- james (, October 10, 2003.

There is an important distinction between labeling individual persons "heretics", and identifying certain doctrinal beliefs as "objectively heretical". "Heretics" are generally those in positions of influence and/or authority in the Church, who personally reject specific doctrinal teachings, and promulgate new doctrines (heresies) in opposition to official Church doctrine. Not everyone who is subsequently exposed to such false teaching, and accepts it as genuine, is personally guilty of the sin of heresy, even though the doctrines they have accepted may be objectively heretical (meaning that they objectively contradict or deny the official teaching of the Church). It is correct to say that many doctrines taught in many Protestant denominations are objectively heretical. It is also correct to say that Luther and other early revolutionaries who were responsible for the formation of denominational religion were heretics (though some Catholic sources downplay this fact in the name of "ecumenism"). It is not however correct, or charitable, to refer to sincere Protestant persons who, like many Catholics, are just believing what they were raised with or what they were taught in church, as "heretics".

-- Paul (, October 10, 2003.

The answer to your question has two answers...for the is called the Protestant Catholics it can be rightly called the protestant revolt...It is really interesting though that some Lutherans don't consider themselves protestants......

-- Pamela B (, October 11, 2003.

I think political correctness is stupid. Changing the wording doesn't change the meaning. Call it "Ozzfest" for all I care. Still the same basic idea.

-- Anti-bush (, October 11, 2003.

Protestants are not even true Christians. How can they be? They reject the Real Presence, The Mass, all the Sacraments, except baptism. How can they be called followers of Christ, when they reject His teachings? They walked with Him no more.

-- Robert (, October 11, 2003.

Well Robert,

That's a bit like saying that the NFL team which finishes the season in last place are not "true atheletes". In fact, they have given it their best, using whatever talent they have. The fact that they are less gifted doesn't make their efforts to win any less "true". Protestants are handicapped in their living of the Christian life because of the lack of just such blessings as you listed, not to mention the guarantee of sound doctrine given to the Church by Jesus, and the authoritative interpretation of scripture. But their goal is the same as ours - to follow Jesus Christ; and they do so to the best of their ability, given the spiritual shortages which have been visited upon them through no direct fault of their own. So they are "true" Christians, even though "incomplete" in many ways. A severely handicapped human being is still a "true" human being.

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more" (Luke 12:48) Catholics have been given far more than any other Christians. Unless our lives reflect that fact, many who have been given less to work with may enter heaven ahead of us.

-- Paul M. (, October 11, 2003.

Paul, your answers, as always, say it all!


-- Gail (, October 12, 2003.

Not sure whether to thank Paul for his sticking up for Protestants, or to be totaly offended by his condescending manner ("severly handicapped human beings are still human beings"). I really don't consider myself handicapped. I try to live my life as a good person, and I worship god my own way, and I figure it will all work out ok in the end. Now if that makes me a) not a Christian, or b)severely handicapped, then so be it.

-- Anti-bush (, October 13, 2003.

Hey anti-bush, try not to sound so ignorant. No one is insulting Protestants here by pointing to the obvious difference between their theology of salvation and the Catholic view of things.

Compared to Catholicism, most non-Anglican Protestants would agree that their theology is far less complex and textured, far less involved and layered. They glory in their "simplicity" and penchant for re-inventing the wheel every generation with "the simple Gospel".

Now you might claim that simpler is preferable - but you can't say it's better if the "parts" we are talking about have to do with an organic system.

For example, an acorn is an oak by species - but it hasn't been developed yet. A sapling may be an oak - but it's still BECOMING PERFECTED ACCORDING TO ITS NATURE. Until the tree fully developes and produces acorns itself, it can't be considered "perfected".

With respect to the human person - the nature or "is-ness" of the living being, can not be affected by the stage of development because the "what" that is being developed from conception through birth and maturity is a "who"! Age and health of this growing "who" are accidentals to the being itself.

So with respect to human dignity and rights and social responsibility, physical or mental handicaps in NO WAY affect the reality of humanity in any living individual member of the species homo sapiens.

Handicaps don't affect the question of human nature - only the condition of that nature, thus to claim that someone is human and handicapped is far more kind and generous and open-minded and humane than the people (such as atheist liberal professor Peter Singer) who claim that the presence of handicaps instantly makes an individual member of the species homo sapiens somehow magically "not human"!

The Catholic Church has always preached that handicaps and other accidentals do not in any way affect the humanity of other human beings - including accidentals such as race or ethnicity and socio- economic or political condition. Modern racism and slavery were non- Catholic and frequently anti-Catholic causes.

On the one side of this debate we have people who claim that if X person doesn't have total, perfect possession of all faculties, powers, and organs, that X can not be considered a human person or human being.

On the other you have those who say, "no, a human person can lack some perfection or have some physical defect without in any way loosing his or her DIGNITY as a human being"! Paul's opinion is with this second group.

With respect to the Protestant vs. Catholic debate, if your guide post is history, then it is absolutely inescapable to conclude that Protestantism rose in the 1500's.... One thousand five hundred years AFTER Catholicism began. That's an historical "handicap".

It's a handicap in so many other ways: It means they have had less opportunities to learn from mistakes and opposition, and less chances to develop a consistent theology and philosophy. They have had less opportunity to prove with their actions that their new doctrine is somehow "superior" to Catholicism!

It's also impossible to regard the various Prostant "theologies" which jettison 5 or 6 of the 7 Christian sacraments as anything but "handicapped" by the loss of these classical Christian treasures.

If you as a Protestant reject the idea that marriage is a sacrament, and you compare yourself with Catholics who believe that it is an "outward sign of real grace in the lives of the husband and wife", then the only fair conclusion you could come to is: your view of life is less grace-filled than the Catholic version.

Since grace (God's action and gift) is a standard Christian belief, if person A thinks they have little grace and person B things they have alot of grace... the only fair conclusion is to decide that Person A is handicapped by their own belief in comparison to Person B.

If you as a Protestant don't believe in the sacrament of healing - as spelled out in the letter of St James - and you compare yourself with a Catholic who does, you must conclude that Catholics believe in the reality of healing power while you don't. In other words, Catholics have an added bonus which your church doesn't recognize. That's a handicap.

If your church teaches that no man can forgive sins (somehow avoiding Jesus' command and gift of the Holy Spirit to his disciples to "forgive sins"), and you compare this with the Catholic view that God can forgive sins either directly or through the ministry of other people (who also console, chide, direct, and support the repentant sinner), then again, you must conclude that the Catholic view of things is more developed and richer and multi-faceted than your own.

Protestants have had to wait until the 1920's secular psychologists arrived on the scene to receive therapy and counselling and "spiritual direction" whereas Catholics have ALWAYS HAD such human resources through their priests and spiritual directors. That is another inescapable historical handicap.

But having only one or two sacraments and a watered down faith and weak theology doesn't ipso facto mean you fail to be a Christian, any more than failing to have eyes or ears would make a child "not human".

It makes them RELATIVELY poorer and COMPARITIVELY less equiped than us, just as having 2 of any good thing is less than having 7 of them.

So unless you really know what the Catholic Church teaches (and we've had 2000 years of the greatest minds and thinkers to straighten it all out, define it, describe it, apply it, and critique it), you should be more circumspect with your emotional judgements.

-- Joe (, October 14, 2003.

You go, Joe; that was great!

Now that we have settled that Paul's analogy of Protestants as "handicapped christians" is right on the mark ... there now exists the type of Protestant who is handicapped but with clubs and other sorts of weaponry primarily used against the vulnerable Catholic. This type of handicapped Protestant athlete wields his club against the vulnerable Catholic athlete during the marathon of life because he wants the Catholic to be as handicapped as he himself is during the race. These zealous handicapped Protestants want the whole world to be as handicapped as they are. They are not so pitiable after all because they have become a menace to the vulnerable true sheep ~ the vulnerable Catholic. Granted, the Catholic must be adequately catechised to edify himself against the lures of the handicapped Protestants who spread half-truths across the globe, but the vulnerable Catholic simply fall prey into their traps of "feel-good entertainment type of worship" and "private biblical interpretation expertise" and "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" (although not as personal as the most personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ of a Catholic eating and drinking the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist; but see, the average Catholic fail to realize that the reception of the Holy Eucharist is the most personal and intimate relationship with Jesus one can have on earth and that they have been "born again" through the Sacrament of Baptism when they were mere infants and that the Mass is the ultimate and pinnacle of Worship of God and that the Magisterium is the Only definitive arbiter of the Bible).

The handicapped Protestants are not so innocent after all. In fact, they carry the rebellious spirit of their rebellious spiritual father, Martin Luther who passed on his handicapped genes to his handicapped children. Martin Luther is alive and kicking even more so today through his millions of spiritual children ~ the handicapped Protestants. And we know who Martin Luther's spiritual father is ~ no one but the father of half-truths ~ Satan himself. The handicapped Protestants cunning half-truths cloaked as "Truths" are indeed our enemies' weaponry.

But as Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies."

The sly handicapped Protestants are indeed both the Enemies and "separated Brethren" (according to the Pope in his Catechism of the Catholic Church) of the Catholics. This is a very curious mix but very familiar.

But again, God prefers Mercy over justice.

So, in agreement with Paul's (the above writer's) tempering admonition, the Catholic should be loving and merciful to the Protestant in obedience to Jesus Christ Himself yet being careful in maintaining his Catholicity because a Catholic should follow Jesus' command to be "as gentle as a dove and as wise as a snake" (a high calling).

-- james (, October 15, 2003.

Yes, Protestants all follow Satan. Have you ever read abook in your life?

-- Anti-bush (, October 16, 2003.

Yes indeed. You Half-Truth!

-- james (, October 17, 2003.

Yes indeed, you half-truth. Have you ever seen a Bible?

-- james (, October 17, 2003.

Anti-bush is an example of the handicapped Protestant who is not so pitiable and not so innocent after all.

-- james (, October 17, 2003.

Anti-Bush, Since you are my enemy, God Bless you.

-- james (, October 17, 2003.

I'd like to think that you're not so closed-minded as to label all those who practice a different faith then you "enemies".

-- Anti-bush (, October 18, 2003.

Dear Comrade Anti-bush,

You are either my friend or my enemy.

Which one are you?

-- james (, October 20, 2003.

Everyone who tries to reason with you about the most crucial truths is immediately labeled as close-minded.

-- eugene c. chavez (, October 20, 2003.

No, I labeled him as close-minded because he called me an enemy simply because I beleive something different than he does. If we all did that, we'd have a world with more war and violence than there is now (which would have to be a lot).


I'm whatever you want me to be. I'd like to think that these arguments don't get down to the personal level. You're a non-catholic trying to give me your version of the truth, and I'm a non-catholic trying to give you mine. We don't neccessarily have to be enemies; I respect people who back up their opinions with substance even if the don't agree with me. I don't agree with Paul, but he's obviously a smart guy who can give reasons for his opinions, so at the end of the day, we're just two people trying to convey the "truth", whatever it may be to each of us.

-- Anti-bush (, October 20, 2003.

Answer the question, bush. Are you his friend or enemy?




-- rod (, October 20, 2003.

Dear Comrade Anti-Bush, Mr. Relativist, (you should not be Anti-Bush for Bush is a Relativist)

Comrade! Orthodoxy!

You stated a Half-truth : "You're a non-catholic trying to give me your version of the truth, and I'm a non-catholic trying to give you mine. (slithery lie)

I am stating a Full-Truth : I am a Catholic believing in the Fullness of the Truth of All the Teachings of the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church; and you are a non-Catholic trying to give me your version of your Half-Truth.

You said, "I'm whatever you want me to be." (I wonder if you can live up to your word.)

!Therefore: I want you to be like Saint Francis the Catholic Franciscan Friar.

Still, I have the question, which one are you, a friend or a fiend?

You stated another Half-Truth : "...convey the "truth", whatever it may be to each of us." (I'm OK; your OK, Everybody's OK.)

I am stating another Full-Truth : The Fullness of Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church.

You cannot agree with Paul because he's a Catholic (Thank God for Paul), nor can you agree with any Catholic because of our True Doctrine based on Divine Revelation and Holy Traditions throughout the Milleniums inherited directly from God the Father, God the Son Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Peter, and God the Holy Spirit.

Your respect for me is irrelevant. I have the great privelege of wearing the Crown of Thorns of Jesus Christ as a Catholic.

O Protestants! How they protest!

-- james (, October 21, 2003.

Whatever. You've just shown what an arrogant SOB you are.

-- Anti-bush (, October 21, 2003.

says YOU? Comrade?

O Protestants! How they protest!

-- james (, October 22, 2003.

and Comrade Bush,

you, as expected, did not live up to your word

you are as different from Saint Francis as the East is from the West

-- james (, October 22, 2003.

I tried to be nice to him. Read his post. I think he'd have a lot more friends if he got off his pedestal.

-- Anti-bush (, October 22, 2003.

Comrade Bush,

Comrade! Orthodoxy!

You are in dire need of a Catholic priest so that you can confess your blatant use of profanity.

-- james (, October 22, 2003.

Really? I didn't think I used any blatant profanity here. Point it out to me, will you?

-- Anti-bush (, October 25, 2003.


-- james (, October 26, 2003.

Anti-bush's "blatant use of profanity"?

In the following posts of his/hers, the actual obscenity is present, not masked in the way I am making it here -----

One of those televangelists (I can't remember which one and frankly I don't give a s--t) currently runs a site called "" which boasts, among other things, a ticker that says "Mathew Shepard has been in hell for _ days." F-----g nut jobs, all of them. -- Anti-bush (, September 07, 2003.

An entire planet of catholics takes orders from a 96-year-old guy in a funny hat in Rome. Plus they're totaly authoritarian, which I really hate (i speak as a former Catholic who converted to Episcoalian). I don't like any televangelists, because what they're basicaly trying to do is set themselves up as Protestant Popes. Most of them preach charity and tell people to help the poor while they live in lavish mansions and don't give a second thought to helping the poor. They're following the path of the Catholic Church. I think everybody should concentrate more on their local pastor than on the Bishop or the High Priest or the Pope or whatever the f--k is at the top. ... -- Anti-bush (, September 17, 2003.

-- (Exposing@the.Filthmouth), October 26, 2003.

Aha. Touche. Big deal. We're all big kids here, I'm sure I haven't said anything that anyone hasn't heard at some point in their life. Grow up, buddy. You have a problem with my point of view, come right out and say it. Don't just hide behind the "He's got a potty mouth..." argument.

-- Anti-bush (, October 26, 2003.








-- james (, October 26, 2003.

Yes. Every sunday, when I go to church, the first thing the Priest says is "Now everyone, let's hear some profanity!" How did you figure me out?

-- Anti-bush (, October 27, 2003.

Not sure whether to thank Paul for his sticking up for Protestants, or to be totaly offended by his condescending manner ("severly handicapped human beings are still human beings"). I really don't consider myself handicapped. I try to live my life as a good person, and I worship god my own way, and I figure it will all work out ok in the end. Now if that makes me a) not a Christian, or b) severely handicapped, then so be it.

-- Anti-bush (, October 13, 2003.



-- james (, October 28, 2003.

Wow, somebody's angry. Chill out, man. Light up another cancer stick. That's our opinion. As infallible as the Pope may be, that is his opinion. My opinion is--like I said before--that I worship god in my own way, and live my life a decent person, and try to exept everybody for who they are, and I hope it all turns out ok.

-- Anti-bush (, October 28, 2003.

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh do I detect some anger here!!!

-- susan (, October 28, 2003.


MR BUSH'S COMRADE SAID, "I worship god in my own way."


-- james (, October 29, 2003.

OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhh do I detect some anger here!!!

all childish taunts aside, i believe i remember a saying along the lines of "rightous anger is a weapon which can lay waste to any army"

-- paul h (, October 29, 2003.

Yes, well it doesn't look like James's anger is laying waste to much of anything.

-- Anti-bush (, October 29, 2003.


-- james (, October 29, 2003.

No, not really.

-- Anti-bush (, October 29, 2003.

By the way, how do you get it to do the highlighting thing?

-- Anti-bush (, November 06, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ