Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

Shouldn't Protestantism be made illegal in Christianity? Protestants themselves decided to go against the Church because they said that everything was wrong with Christianity.

So how can Protestants call themselves Christian when they left the faith a long time ago?

That is a complex issue, and I guess the great majority here won't be interested in it, as this forum is for defense matters. Anyway, I agree with you. I am Catholic. For me, what defines "Christianity" are two things:
1- to keep the deposit of faith, that is, what Jesus taught, the Apostles preached and the Fathers explained. If something is added or removed from these teachings, true Christianity is lost;
2- Apostolic succession, that is, an unbroken chain that goes back to the times of Christ.
In my opinion, fully and truly Christians are the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which unfortunately are in schism since the 11th Century. I don't know much about other smaller churches that have apostolic origins, like Chaldean, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, etc, they have some differences in doctrine but I don't know how big these are. Protestantism, evangelism, LDS, etc, lack those two characteristics, and the farther they are from the original Christianity, the less Christians they are - therefore LDS have much more strange, non-Christian doctrines than original Lutheran churches.
Regarding "being made illegal", I don't know what you mean by it, but I don't think the state should forbid or persecute them.

I thought the divergence from Catholicism rotated around what Christ meant by "my rock". Catholics interpret
that it was Peter and the Protestants interpret that reference to be to confession. Catholicism basically established
a line of succession from Christ with its interpretation and the popes are Christ's successors.

https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock

I think the Protestant position is the legitimate one. But Protestantism is not just about clarifying such details.
It carries a whole bunch of extra baggage. For example take the Puritans and their perversion of Christianity by
weaving in the notion that business success is blessed by God. The converse is that if you fail at business and
making money then you don't have God's blessing. So all Protestant sects that engage in such heresy are indeed
not Christian.

kvs wrote:I thought the divergence from Catholicism rotated around what Christ meant by "my rock".   Catholics interpret
that it was Peter and the Protestants interpret that reference to be to confession.    Catholicism basically established
a line of succession from Christ with its interpretation and the popes are Christ's successors.

Yes, but Apostolic succession is also important for Orthodoxy, their bishops are successors of the Apostles. The most dividing issue between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Christianity is the the primacy of the bishop of Rome (pope).

The differences between Cathoicism and Protestantism are negligible and are limited to some minor theological issues. Things like purgatory, nature of the trinity  amd the sacraments - all these petty things have no impact on the sociopolitical teachings - and have no influence on the lives of anyone except some handful theologians who endlessly debate them.

Early Protestantism did have it's dark side - large scale witch hunts that started in 16th century (before then it was an extremely rare occurence) and Calvin somehow got an idea to start implementing old laws from the Old Testament - but Protestant madness only lasted for some 150 years after which everything got back to normal.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:The differences between Cathoicism and Protestantism are negligible and are limited to some minor theological issues. Things like purgatory, nature of the trinity  amd the sacraments - all these petty things have no impact on the sociopolitical teachings - and have no influence on the lives of anyone except some handful theologians who endlessly debate them.

I wouldn't say they are negligible, it is quite a number of differences that you pointed, and there are more. Also, Protestantism has a complete different liturgy (though, I have to sadly admit, the Catholic Mass after Council Vatican II reforms is almost a copy of Protestant rites, but anyway I avoid it and usually go to a church with Latin mass). From the point of view of Catholicism that I adhere to - and I am not here to impose it on anyone - Protestantism has no valid sacraments. Differently from Orthodoxy, for example, as the Vatican has declared many times that Orthodoxy has valid sacraments, that is, Orthodox baptism, matrimony and Eucharist are real.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:The differences between Cathoicism and Protestantism are negligible

As an [Eastern] Orthodox myself who generally works in predominantly Protestant countries I can state without a modicum of doubt that the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is certainly not negligible.

Christianity in its most pristine form is practiced only by the Eastern Orthodox.

Anti Orthodox and anti Catholic bigotry is endemic among Protestants.Across the spectrum of Protestant belief Lutherans, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Baptists bigotry against Catholics & Orthodox is very much accepted.

Has there ever been a Protestant version of Nostra Aetate? Has there ever been a Protestant version of John Paul II's 1999-2000 Jubilee Year statements on Memory and Reconciliation, the Church and the Faults of the Past?

If not, why not? I think we all know the answer. And that is why I said in my opening para that Protestants cannot be called Christians because they left the Christian faith of their own accord.

Jhelb, as you are Orthodox, I would like to know a bit more about what you think about Roman Catholicism. I've known a number of Orthodox myself who think that Catholicism is a heresy (because mainly of filioque and immaculate conception). I have had some quarrels with such Orthodox. From what you wrote, it seems, however, that you don't think this way.
My view regarding Orthodoxy is that it is as valid as Catholicism. Like I said before, both have doctrines, rituals and hierarchy that attach directly to Christ. As the Vatican has declared many times, Orthodoxy has valid sacraments, so in Eucharist the faithful receive the true body of Christ, and therefore both Catholics and Orthodox followers are member of the one mystic body of Christ. This is what Vladimir Solovyov also thought, when he declared that both churches are still mystically united. I can agree with you that Eastern Orthodoxy is the most pristine form, because it has kept with great zeal the original liturgies, music and iconography, while the West has always been more open to changes. Then we have this disaster which is the contemporary Novo Ordus mass, which like I said is almost a Protestant one.

Catholic and Orthodox churches recognize each other as valid - so members of one church saying that the other is heretic are going against the teaching of their religion.

Mainstream Lutheran churches are also very ecumenic in their approach - narrow minded "damn you all" approach is limited to minor evangelical churches.

Svyatoslavich wrote:Jhelb, as you are Orthodox, I would like to know a bit more about what you think about Roman Catholicism. I've known a number of Orthodox myself who think that Catholicism is a heresy (because mainly of filioque and immaculate conception). I have had some quarrels with such Orthodox. From what you wrote, it seems, however, that you don't think this way.

I personally have a favorable opinion about Catholicism in Europe. A significant number of my co workers, friends in places like Paris, Berlin, London are practicing Catholics. Unfortunately in the US, Catholicism has come under the evil influence of Protestantism. For example,Ronald Reagan even denied that he had any Catholic influence despite the fact that his father was Catholic. Consequently, Catholics became money minded like Protestants and even started to discriminate against Blacks. In other words they embraced ideas that are in sharp contrast to what the Holy Bible has to say.

higurashihougi wrote:They left the Roman Catholic Church. They did not left the faith.

Leaving the Catholic Church means leaving Christianity, because the Catholic Church was Christianity. For example a number of Buddhist, Sikhs were previously Hindoos. They left that religion to form their own, so they are not considered as Hindoos any more. The same logic should apply to Protestants. IMO, they are no longer Christians.

higurashihougi wrote:So... yeah. Protetsant, Catholic, Orthodox,... they are all Christian.

But Mormons are not.

But then Mormons are no different than Protestants, because they too left the Catholic faith.

An aside: More Americans consider Mormons to be Christians than Blacks.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Mainstream Lutheran churches are also very ecumenic in their approach - narrow minded "damn you all" approach is limited to minor evangelical churches

Minor Walther    Evangelical churches are the fastest growing churches in the US. Today most Protestants in the US identify themselves as Evangelicals and not Mainline.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:The differences between Cathoicism and Protestantism are negligible and are limited to some minor theological issues. Things like purgatory, nature of the trinity  amd the sacraments - all these petty things have no impact on the sociopolitical teachings - and have no influence on the lives of anyone except some handful theologians who endlessly debate them.

Early Protestantism did have it's dark side - large scale witch hunts that started in 16th century (before then it was an extremely rare occurence) and Calvin somehow got an idea to start implementing old laws from the Old Testament - but Protestant madness only lasted for some 150 years after which everything got back to normal.

The differences are actually huge. The depositary of faith wields a power, scratch that and faith can be used by anyone, anywhere. That's one of the weaknesses of both Sunni Islam and Protestantism in Extenso. Any one can become an Emir or Pastor. Both versions can be furthermore politicized and diluted, up to the extreme point of Judaism that sees faith transformed in "ethnicity". This mindless cretinism that defines humans by something so badly constructed is what pulls a huge part of humanity down. And to fight that drag that most Catholics have had vast forays of secular power and a clear distinction between faith and "ethnic group". The orthodox have gone the opposite side, but putting faith at the heart of their states more or less (until the Russian Revolution). That resulted in more cohesive/coherent groups but also a bigger transformational drag which had to be overcome by drastic measures from the revolutionary leadership. This aspect was also present in China and Japan, where the political power broke the old traditions without pity or outright assimilated them to the political leadership (with the very crazy aura of the Emperor in Japan, much more than what it was before the Meiji Era).

In my opinion the Protestant secession was simply a political lever pulled by then Central Europe and used to definitely kill the Italian prominence in matter of the continent. Which they suceeded by turning the whole of Europe into a battlefield. That led to the development of the peripheral powers that coupled with trade a fervent faith (or counter faith as seen in Spain with the Counter-Reform and Jesuit rise to prominency). The peripheral transit also coincided with the definite loss of " Eastern Rome". Which was also on the "German" willingness to abandon the eastern trade because it was costing too much and was physically more perillous (Dark Plague etc), furthermore the Eastern Expansion was bringing a lot more competition to the Hanseatic league as well.

So in the end a lunacy out of Bohemia caused the whole of Europe to shift its roots to the West and literally annihilate three thousand years of history and traditions. And no it wasn't JUST about whose church was truer as for the whole sinful ways of the Catholic Church the Protestant found thousand more ways to discredit Christianity. My only regret is that Orthodoxy was buried deep under layers of Muslim gunk and retained the most hardcore secluded forms of culture in other to survive that even today lead to its generally paranoidal culture. That with a reason, but still.

jhelb wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:They left the Roman Catholic Church. They did not left the faith.

Leaving the Catholic Church means leaving Christianity, because the Catholic Church was Christianity. For example a number of Buddhist, Sikhs were previously Hindoos. They left that religion to form their own, so they are not considered as Hindoos any more. The same logic should apply to Protestants. IMO, they are no longer Christians.

What, do you think protestants don't believe in Christ? Many eastern churches never accepted the catholic faith. Are they also not "christian" enough for you? From their perspective then, the catholics were never christians.

And it's Hindu, not Hindoo. What the heck is a hindoo anyway?

higurashihougi wrote:So... yeah. Protetsant, Catholic, Orthodox,... they are all Christian.

But Mormons are not.

jhelb wrote:But then Mormons are no different than Protestants, because they too left the Catholic faith.

Yeah, they left the catholic faith. No protestant believed they left the christian faith. Big difference. If you call yourself a christian, and believe you are, then that is what you are. No need for any permission from some "pope".

Cucumber Khan wrote:What, do you think protestants don't believe in Christ? Many eastern churches never accepted the catholic faith. Are they also not "christian" enough for you? From their perspective then, the catholics were never christians.

If this is what you define by "Christians", then anyone can be one. Is it enough just believe in "Christ"? Who was "Christ"? What did He teach? This is the whole point, you need a definition to say who is Christian and who isn't. Like I said in my first post here, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only two churches which kept the depository of faith (that is, the teachings of Jesus transmitted to the Apostles, who spread it to the world, which the Fathers further explained) and have an Apostolic succession that traces back to Christ's era. If you add or remove teachings to the depository of faith (like salvation by faith alone, or that only scripture has all the Christian doctrine, as examples of mainstream Lutheranism which is still quite close to Catholicism, but already deviant to the point of destroying the depository), or break the succession, then what are you teaching and believing is not the same as what Catholics and Orthodox teach and believe. Hence Jhelb's question.

higurashihougi wrote:

jhelb wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:They left the Roman Catholic Church. They did not left the faith.

Leaving the Catholic Church means leaving Christianity, because the Catholic Church was Christianity. For example a number of Buddhist, Sikhs were previously Hindoos. They left that religion to form their own, so they are not considered as Hindoos any more. The same logic should apply to Protestants. IMO, they are no longer Christians.

Wrong.

The Protestant movement did not aim to defy Jesus or the Bible. They only claimed that Vatican Catholic Church and others are corrupted and only their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

On the other side, Catholic Church also claimed that their own interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one, and Protestant interpretation is incorrect.

Eastern Orthodox is similar, they claimed that their understanding of Jesus and the Bible is the only correct one, others are wrong.

None of them defy Jesus, none of them defy the Bible. Bible is their only religious textbook. Yahveh is their only God, all them recognized Jesus as the son of Yahveh.

The issues here is that they disagree about how to interpret and understand the Bible.

So they are all Christians.

Protestants claimed a lot more than that. They claimed the bible was true by virtue of word. Well we know now, and Rome knew that the bible is half apocryphal since the mid IVth century, given they hackjobbed the book themselves. Idits like Jan Hus were preaching that all you need was the DAMN BOOK. However when you read the book it is a flurry of nonsense and generally very little of it is of use bar sheep herding. That's the core of defiance of Jesus.

With Catholicism and the refinement of the Church, the church and state separation was ironically a real thing, up to the point the Pope and Emperor would come to blows. This doesn't exist anymore with Protestantism. The very few example or officiating protestantism, like Geneva where basically they experimented Nazism and mob-rule. While you could explain this when it comes to herds of catholic loving servile people, having Noble men chasing serfs in the name of the true God, was baseline madness. Today's IRI for instance has nothing to envy to the then Theocratic Republic of Geneva. Only that Iran doesn't hang your ass for being a Jew. Which happened under Calvin.

Now I like the whitewashing the Protestants enjoy because of the extraordinary vile methods of the Catholics in their regards, but the fact is that if those idiots were to be in the XXIst century they would be called ISIS and Al Qaeda. So open your damn eyes and look beyond "it was all the same". It wasn't.

Cucumber Khan wrote:
Yeah, they left the catholic faith. No protestant believed they left the christian faith. Big difference.

Protestants developed their own form of worship. They view the Scripture differently. Catholics teach that Christians must rely on faith plus meritorious works in order to be saved. Protestants on the other hand believe that, on the basis of faith in Christ alone, believers are justified by God. SO they are rejecting the doctrine of salvation are the Seven Sacraments, which are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony.

More importantly Protestants established the Church of England as a rival to the Vatican.

In fact today, and I hope you read this most Evangelical US churches are trying their best to convert Catholics into Protestants across South America, Africa and Asia. Brazil is a classic example where thousands of Catholics were converted to Protestants by US Evangelical churches.

Cucumber Khan wrote:If you call yourself a christian, and believe you are, then that is what you are. No need for any permission from some "pope".

In that case what's the need for baptism and communion?

Protestantism carries a heavier baggage of insanity than either Catholicism or Orthodoxy - not many folks know that creationism is in 100% a Protestant invention - and as far back as 5th century AD St. Augustine of Hippo called against interpreting the Genesis myth literally. 1600 years later we have Evangelicals saying that the earth is 6000 years old. Who is more pathetic?

Medieval mindset is medieval mindset - creationism has never been an official doctrinal stance neither in Catholicism nor in Orthodoxy. Several Church Fathers wrote commentaries on Genesis and only one of them had a semi-literal understanding of it.

Protestant creationist BS relies on the assumption that the Bible is the word of God - something that even the Bible itself does not say. And historically Catholicism and Orthodoxy held a stance that the Bible is a human work, just written by "inspired" people.

higurashihougi wrote:

jhelb wrote:Protestants developed their own form of worship. They view the Scripture differently.

But they still believe in the Bible as the only religious textbook, still believe in Yahveh as the only God, and believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

The difference between Christian branches is that they has different interpretation of the religious scriptures. And all claims that they are the only correct interpretator, means they do not recognize each others. But scholars call all of them Christians.

Like Buddhists have Mahayana, Hinayana, etc etc,... but all are Buddhists.

Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant do not recognize each other as the true successor. But they are still branches of Christianity.

Deal with it.

jhelb wrote:In that case what's the need for baptism and communion?

Pure formalities. Each religious organization has its own formalities, rituals and procedures to grant/achieve/recognize the membership.

The problem once again, is the historical dimension of the said churches. There's none with Protestantism. The Protestant faith it totally a-historical, it's like the dozen salafi sects that butchered Islam's organizational structure. Fitna and Protestantism is the same phenomenon. And they both delivered fatal blows to the faith. One because it litterally dragged Islam down to bits. The other because it ultimately  planted the seeds to self destruction, which ultimately is seen in Europe with a very sharp decrease in church attendance.

There's no cadre/ frame for Protestantism. If you break the timeframe, you then have to critically read the Scriptures. And they're wrong, false, censored, contradicting. There's nothing you can keep out of the Scriptures without the de-litteralisation frame of the Catholic Church. That's something the Protestants never got to understand. It's the customary traditions that make Catholicism palatable actually, that give it a sense not the scriptures per se. Unless you belive that earth was set up in less than a week and some Jesus guys could go all Gandalf on those wine jars.

I can also belive that there's a God being some Half-Semitic Deity but I'd like to worship him by raping grannies, or repairing watches, how would that make me look like. Kif kif Christian? That's what went wrong with Protestantism and that how the crazy squad from LDS and other such American sectarian aberrations are the most active and expanding churches out there. If you read the Bible, you also have to ask yourself  which version? How do I read it? What do I make of the "Old Testament"? How can the Old Testament become useful when dealing with Jews or Muslims (or even other Christians)? These are the questions people evade when talking about Protestantism. At least with the Catholics I got an answer, usually out of touch but I got it. You'd be damned to have the same from the Proto bunch.

Oh and Medieval people? When and Where in the "Middle ages"? While some Franc pig peasant in the High Middle Age (VIth century) might have been FOS, in Norther Africa some guys were still drawing a round earth while Guys in Anatolia were calculating distances to the stars basing themselves on polytheistic heritage.

Just drop the Medieval People were the same everywhere. In Spain for the biggest part of the Middle ages the Muslims would laugh at the general ignorance of Flat Earth mouthbreathers sporting crosses. Most of the crown under them would do the same, nevermind them being second hand citizen. That's something to reflect upon.

Christianty does not preach theocracy like Judaism and Islam do - Europe was pretty much secular before the Reformation - not secular in the modern sense but you had very distinct hierarchies of clergy and very distinct codes of secular and religious law. European legal systems at that time were based on tribal Germanic laws and in Byzantium (before it fell) law was based on pre-Christian Roman law (codified in Corpus Iuris Civilis), not on the Bible.

So what did the Reformation change? Luther wanted to make the Church subservient to state anc Calvin wanted to make the state subservient to the Church. Neither of them wanted separation.

higurashihougi wrote:Protestant's way of interpret the Bible reflects the fact that they rebelled against Catholic bureaucratic system in the Medieval Era, which they deemed bureaucratic, oppressive, and corrupted. The Protestant pioneers were trying to crush the power and authority system of Catholic Church and how Protestant read the Bible today more or less reflect their ancestor's rebellion.

That's totally paradoxal. THe people who pushed for that reform were mostly Rich and Litterate they weren't going to free anyone but their wn ambitions. The fact is that when the St Barthelemy happened in France half of Paris 'bourgeois' went missing and a good bunch of Nobles as well. The Protestant weren't trying to crush no power, the same as the first Christians weren't interested in tolerating paganism. It was a simple dress-up.

In more details, by demanding a word-by-word, dogmatic and literal interpretation of the Bible, the Protestant pioneers planned to cripple the authority and power of Catholic priest and stripping off their authority to freely interpret the Bible as they want. Protestant pioneers believed that, if people strictly and literally follow the Bible word-by-word, then priests could no longer twisted the Bible for their own selfish benefits.

Dogmatic following leads to shit like Calvin and ISIS. Which is indeed a good thing, you can never have enough liberators telling you what to do...or end up dead.

You can say that, in Catholic, authority and power was put in the hand of priest and clergy. While in Protestant, authority and power was put in the Bible. For Protestant pioneers, the Bible is the only guide and no one can freely interpret the Bible, neither adherents nor pastors.

Authority and power was well separated since the beggining. That's why you see a twin-headed eagle. It's a symbol meanning that spiritual power and temporal power are two different things. That's why you have an Emperor and a Pope. Don't forget the initial point of the Pope was the Emperor's home. Rome. The Temporal Power grew the Spiritual one.

That is the reason why Protestant quickly emerged as a heavyweight opponents of Catholic. At the time of Protestant Movement, Catholic bureaucratic system was highly corrupted and oppressive, and priest was considered by many people as greedy, selfish liars. Protestant Movement gave many people a mean to counter the Catholic power and attracted great number of dissidents.

Nope Protestants grew as heavyweights because a huge part of the German Nobility was to happy to point their fingers to the filthy deceiving southerners (just like...today). Then the Protestant disease hit France and crippled the country foe two full centuries. Better those so true Christians were also as intolerant and censoring as the older guys, but here there's a new idea. The Protestants were also self-righteous assholes who would build a completely retarded life aesthetic based on their own vision. So women to be redressed up to the neck, not being able to work in company of men. Various prohibitions (music, gambling, non-canon litterature) but most of these for the city-dwellers. The Nobles (and the rich) would go by the same old school like always. Protestantism instead of fighting the power, took away the old incentives to create a different future. For protestantism, given all the Normal Orders were a travesty of the word of the Christ, all monacal activities were to be either taxed either disbanded.

And of course, as Catholic hegemony started to collapse, and Protestants and Catholics killed each other out, secular power wasted no chance to enter the vacuum. The Protestant rebellion against Catholic system paid great contribution to the decline of Church power and the gradual rise of secular government.

Secular power was there from the beggining. Most of the choices that led to confrontation were backed by secular and temporal power, how do you think Luther escaped his due for so long? People were protecing him lol? The nobility of the region and the Hanseatic League were A-OK with that asshole wrecking havoc among Christians.

Up to this day that idiotic vision of "reformation" lives. Just look at the un-repenting idiotic "Reform for cash" mantra of the Lutheran States against Greece. It's still there deep down. Minless change that will not resist the challenge of time...and so didn't the Protestant Church. There's no unity, there's no logic, there is no truth among protestants. It's just a travesty...