What exactly are Protestants still protesting?

In Vatican says Catholicism is the ONLY way to salvation, where we’ve determined, though Protestants still might be saved, they do not actually belong to “churches in the proper sense” according to the Catholic Church.

Satan wrote:

Which got me to thinking. Martin Luther was primarily upset about the selling of Indulgences, which were promises by the Pope for less time in purgatory for a small fee.

But, the Catholic Church no longer sells indulgences, and no longer believes in Purgatory for that matter. For hundreds of years now.

So, what exactly are Protestants still Protesting?

Oh, they complain a ton about a lot of things.

Catcheism (sp) is scrutinized… Protestants claim that the ritual of Catholicism gets in the way of what they are supposed to do… Protestants feel that Mary and the Saints should not get prayed to… I could go on.

There are a ton of Chick Tracts all of which point out the differences - though as is usually the case with Jack Chick, heavy on misinterpretations and out-and-out deception.


Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, four weeks, 17 hours, 33 minutes and 27 seconds.
6029 cigarettes not smoked, saving $753.66.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 22 hours, 25 minutes.

Actually, I don’t think the Protestants ** are ** protesting, as a lot.

For example. Lutherans, call themselves Lutherans, not protestants for example. They may agree that the category of Christian religion may in fact be protestants, but that’s a different thing.

And, as I see it, they aren’t regalling themselves (collectively or individually) for or against the Catholics (well, except in Ireland, but that’s a whole different can 0 worms). They believe what they believe and don’t think of it as “this is our belief as opposed to the Catholics who are wrong wrong wrong”.

I actually had an odd conversation with a Lutheran minister once to ask “what’s the difference between the synods” (the sub group of the class Lutheran). The first 3 I asked couldn’t really identify it, the 4th gave a rather interesting historical perspective. (I, on the other hand always thought of Lutherans as “Catholic light” but I digress).

So, what’s the debate???

I suppose I could have started this in GQ, but I thought I’d save Manhattan the trouble of moving it.

I guess my question is: do any of Luther’s complaints still apply? If not, what is the basis for Protestantism?

Here are the 95 Theses Martin Luther nailed on the church door at Wittenburg.

  1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed
    the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

  2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance,
    that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

  3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is
    worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

  4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true
    inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

  5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those
    imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

  6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it
    has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases
    reserved
    to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were
    disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

  7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all
    things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

  8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to
    the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

  9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the
    pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of
    necessity.

  10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying,
    reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

  11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory
    were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

  12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before
    absolution, as tests of true contrition.

  13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far
    as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

  14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily
    brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

  15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other
    things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the
    horror of despair.

  16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and
    assurance of salvation.

  17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily
    decrease and love increase.

  18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture,
    that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to
    grow in love.

  19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of
    them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves
    may
    be entirely certain of it.

  20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words “plenary remission of all
    penalties,” does not actually mean “all penalties,” but only those imposed by
    himself.

  21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is
    absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

  22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
    which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

  23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at
    all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very
    few.

  24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that
    indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

  25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to
    the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own
    diocese and parish.

  26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory,
    not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of
    intercession for them.

  27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks
    into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

  28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and
    avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in
    the
    hands of God alone.

  29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we
    have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

  30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of
    having received plenary remission.

  31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really
    penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

  32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because
    they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their
    teachers.

  33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope’s
    pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

  34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of
    sacramental satisfaction established by man.

  35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who
    intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach
    unchristian doctrine.

  36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty
    and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

  37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the
    blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even
    without indulgence letters.

  38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be
    disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the
    divine remission.

  39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and
    the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need
    of true contrition.

  40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for
    his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes
    men
    to hate them – at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

  41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously
    think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

  42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying
    of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

  43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the
    needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

  44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man
    does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed
    from penalties.

  45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him
    by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but
    God’s wrath.

  46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need,
    they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it
    on
    indulgences.

  47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter
    of free choice, not commanded.

  48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs
    and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

  49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if
    they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear
    of God because of them.

  50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the
    indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were
    burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

  51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give
    of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to
    many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

  52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the
    indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

  53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the
    preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may
    be
    preached in others.

  54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or
    larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

  55. It is certainly the pope’s sentiment that if indulgences, which are a
    very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and
    one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be
    preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

  56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes
    indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of
    Christ.

  57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many
    indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

  58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the
    pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death,
    and hell for the outer man.

  59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the
    church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

  60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given
    by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

  61. For it is clear that the pope’s power is of itself sufficient for the
    remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

  62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and
    grace of God.

  63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be
    last (Mt. 20:16).

  64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most
    acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

  65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly
    fished for men of wealth.

  66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the
    wealth of men.

  67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are
    actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

  68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when
    compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

  69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal
    indulgences with all reverence.

  70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men
    preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

  71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be
    anathema and accursed.

  72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence
    preachers be blessed.

  73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever
    contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

  74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as
    a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

  75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even
    if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

  76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very
    least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

  77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater
    graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

  78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope
    whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel,
    spiritual
    powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Co 12[:28].

  79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up
    by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is
    blasphemy.

  80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread
    among the people will have to answer for this.

  81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for
    learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or
    from
    the shrewd questions of the laity.

  82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love
    and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite
    number
    of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The
    former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

  83. Again, “Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and
    why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for
    them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

  84. Again, “What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a
    consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to
    buy
    out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because
    of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love’s sake?”

  85. Again, “Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in
    actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences
    as though they were still alive and in force?”

  86. Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the
    wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his
    own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”

  87. Again, “What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect
    contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?”

  88. Again, “What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope
    were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred
    times a day, as he now does but once?”

  89. “Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his
    indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously
    granted when they have equal efficacy?”

  90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and
    not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope
    to
    the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

  91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and
    intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed,
    they would not exist.

  92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ,
    “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

  93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross,
    cross,” and there is no cross!

  94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their
    Head, through penalties, death and hell.

  95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations
    rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

I guess I wasn’t clear. Lutheranism may have begun as a “Protest” to the Catholics, and as such had a series of grievences and differences. At this point, they merely seem to be perfectly happy being Lutherans as opposed to “actively protesting Catholics’ beliefs”. They have their tenents, they believe in them, and don’t wander over to the Catholic’s yard and chant “Nyah nyah” much anymore.

Christianity is a religion that has split into a number of different “sects”. this is not unusual. many if not most religions do this. Some churchs are very small. There’s a local preacher who’s started his own church- his congregation consists of him, his wife, his mom and sometimes one or two other folks they’ve found along the way. He mows lawns as his day job. Some churchs/sects are very large. They don’t seem to “compete” in the same way they used to, if that is your question. they merely believe what their own tenants say and don’t spend a whole lot of time comparing notes 'tween the others.

Actually, the pope brought bake indulgences this year for the Jubilee. Not really for sale but kind of. IIRC, you could earn indulgences for pilgrimages to the jubilee events at holy sites.
I had a link to this but it’s no longer active. You can probably find reference to it on the Vatican website if you’re interested.

LOL, …brought BACK indulgences…

That was my best typo of the day so far.

Well, that would explain Sunday’s bake sale! :smiley:

Well, keep in mind that, like the Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, and any number of other religious groups you could name, the early Protestants never gave themselves the name “Protestants.” 16th-century Lutherans in England called themselves “the godly,” a name which persisted through to the early-17th century, when that title was claimed for by the Puritans. “The Protestants” was a term of abuse by Catholic writers–the first reference I know of in English was in the title of the Catholic writer Miles Hogarde’s The Displaying of the Protestants, published in 1554.

They’re not really protesting anything anymore. plus, protestant simply refers to forms of Christianity that split off from the catholic church. it’s not like there just going to come back and rejoin. that’s kind of like asking the US to reunite with britain after britain got it’s act together.

The Roman Catholic Church is no longer catholic. So why do they call themselves that?

AT&T used to stand for American Telephone and Telegraph, but the telegraph is dead. Why do they call themselves AT&T?

Wake Forest University is miles away from Wake Forest. Why do they keep the name?
Joe Blow never protests anything. Joe Blow Protestant accepts the label for its meanings other than the literal.

Come over to this part of the world, wring, and you’ll meet a lot of Protestants who actively refer to themselves as such.

And some of them do much more than chant “nyah nyah” at Catholics :frowning:

I SAID “except for Ireland, that’s another whole can -o - worms”

I always thought that we ought to start a Winston Salem University in Wake Forest, just to keep things in balance, Andros.

JMullaney, it is surprising that you have never looked into the “thematic” differences between Protestantism as a whole and Catholicism. There are quite a few very significant ones remaining:

1. Sola Scriptura: Protestants without exception hold that no doctrine can be required which is not founded in Scripture, as opposed to the Catholic insistence on reason, Scripture, and tradition as valid sources. Obviously this allows for a little interpretive license, most obviously as regards the Holy Trinity. But the generic assertion is a strong tenet of all Protestant faiths.

2. Salvation by Faith: Protestants focus on the idea that one is saved by God’s grace accepted through faith. Historically, Protestant polemicists have misinterpreted Catholic sacramental and penitential doctrine to suggest that Catholics believe in salvation through good works alone. But the fact remains that Protestants stress the importance of faith far more than Catholic teaching usually does.

3. Conversion Experiences: Not all Protestants hold to a Billy Graham style conversion experience, where one rapidly turns from a life and mindset apart from God to one focused on Him. But it is a common phenomenon, and part of some evangelical churches’ expectation of the believer that he has experienced one or will come to experience one. Contrast this with the rarity of such experiences among Catholics, and the extreme downplaying of the need for one.

4. Non-sacramentalism: The Catholic doctrine of seven sacraments is held by only a few ultra-high Anglicans and Lutherans. Officially those two churches and the Methodists believe that only Baptism and the Eucharist are true “Gospel” sacraments. Some “mainline” Protestant deominations and virtually all evangelical churches consider that there is no such thing as a sacrament, and that those two are “ordinances” done because Christ called for them but not conveying grace. Although Anglican and Lutheran churches, and to a lesser extent the other “mainline” denominations, tend to celebrate Eucharist every Sunday, this is a relatively recent development, and historically the Protestant service is adapted from the old monastic morning office (combination of Lauds, Matins, and Prime), with a sermon as its focal point.

5. Black and White: Even though Catholicism has downplayed Purgatory in favor of an (unnamed) “intermediate state” in which one grows in grace after death prior to being taken into Heaven, this is still pretty much contrary to Protestant teaching. The whole “treasury of grace,” the priestly dispensing power, and all the other paraphenalia of the Catholic interpretation of dispensation of grace and forgiveness is thrown out in favor of a doctrine where one is saved, once and for all, by grace and faith (as noted above) with no gray areas of (venial) sin or debt for penitence to be worked off.

**6. Jealous God: ** The entire concept of recognized canonized saints, invoking their intercession through prayer to them, the Mary cultus that plays a large part in the piety of some Catholics, all are quite verboten. Any focus on a human that detracts one from God is contrary to Protestant practice. (Anglicans leave a bit of wiggle room here, and “mainline” Protestants may allow for at least the Apostles and Evangelists to be acknowledged as Saints.

There are a bunch more distinctions, but that will serve as a good start. I hope Navigator looks at this thread; he can spell out more, and better, than I.

I grew up in the Episcopal church. I was told that protestant does not mean “one who protests”, but rather it is from the Latin pro- forth +testari to call to witness. So that a protestant is someone who speaks for (witnessing) not someone who speaks against (something).

Ah, so you did. Dunno how I missed that. Apologies.

It isn’t entirely limited to Ireland, though. Many of Ireland’s (or more accurately, Northern Ireland)'s sectarian problems exist, though on a thankfully much lesser scale, in Scotland, and you’ll still generally hear people there referring to themselves as “Protestants” rather than “Presbyterians” or whatever. And the British monarch is still prohibited by law from marrying a Catholic. Hell, even the US Congress refused to appoint a Catholic as House Chaplain earlier this year.

Protestantism surely isn’t as anti-Catholic as it used to be, but it’s a mistake to think those elements of it have completely disappeared, even outwith this island.

Correct. Many of us in the States unfortunately take on the idea that if it’s so here, so must it be elsewhere. Sigh.
well, at least I 'membered Ireland.

You guys are missing something which is the primary meaning of “protest” which is not to complain but rather to make any solemn and forceful expression.

Protestants were expressing their views. that’s all
Main Entry: 2pro·test
Pronunciation: pr&-'test, ‘prO-", prO-’
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French protester, from Latin protestari, from pro- forth + testari to call to witness – more at PRO-, TESTAMENT
Date: 15th century
transitive senses
1 : to make solemn declaration or affirmation of <protest my innocence>
2 : to execute or have executed a formal protest against (as a bill or note)
3 : to make a statement or gesture in objection to <protested the abuses of human rights>
intransitive senses
1 : to make a protestation
2 : to make or enter a protest
synonym see ASSERT

  • pro·test·er or pro·tes·tor /-'tes-t&r, -"tes-/ noun

POLYCARP, you remain my hero. :slight_smile:

I would only add that a major distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism, IMO, is the rejection by Protestants of the idea of “intercession.” Protestants do not believe that a pastor or priest is necessary to convey the beliefs, prayers, pennance, etc., of any individual to God, nor do they believe that a pastor or priest can provide forgiveness of sins. They also do not believe that it is necessary (or, some would say, proper) for a person to ask a non-corporeal entity (such as a saint or the BVM) to intecede with God on their behalf.

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses does talk about this, in that it states unequivocally that the penalty imposed by a priest is not the same as the penalty imposed by God, and forgiveness offered by a priest is not the same as forgiveness offered by God. It therefore denies in part the intercessory power of the priesthood. This rejection of the idea of “intercession,” is still a significant distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism. Again, IMO.

As with so many other things, it’s not what you’re FOR that’s important… what’s important is what you’re AGAINST.