Are Protestants Christian?
#31
Wandering Penitent:  That is a really helpful definition.  I ask (from special interest in the Eastern Churches) how you deal  with the problem of the filioque in their version of the Nicene Creed.  I've noticed recently that even in the Eastern Rite churches in full communion with Rome, the filioque clause has been crossed out in their missals.

Reply
#32
I attend a Byzantine Mass sometimes on Sundays.  The Filioque is omitted from the Creed as per concord of the Union of Brest in 1595 Anno Domini.
Reply
#33
By the "Nicene" creed I mean the original, not the one we use. I believe the Filioque to be correct but one can be considered a Christian and not profess it since it was not in the original draft of the Creed to begin with (even though it should have been).

The Byzantine Catholics still leave out for liturgical reasons, but do not argue with its doctrinal truth.
Reply
#34
CS Lewis defined Christian thusly in Mere Christianityhttp://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

Far deeper objections may be  felt-and have been expressed- against  my
use of the  word Christian to mean one  who  accepts the common doctrines of
Christianity. People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a
Christian?" or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far
more truly  a  Christian, far closer to the  spirit of Christ, than some who
do?"  Now this  objection is in  one sense very right, very charitable, very
spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being
useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use  language as these objectors
want us to use it. I will  try to make this clear by the history of another,
and very much less important, word.
    The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had
a  coat  of  arms  and  some  landed  property. When you  called  someone "a
gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a  fact.
If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not  insulting him, but giving
information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a
gentleman; any more than there now  is in saying that James is a fool and an
M.A.  But  then  there  came  people  who  said-so  rightly,  charitably,
spiritually,  sensitively,  so  anything  but  usefully-"Ah, but  surely the
important thing about a gentleman is not the  coat of arms and the land, but
the behaviour?  Surely he is the  true gentleman who behaves  as a gentleman
should?  Surely in  that sense  Edward is far  more  truly a gentleman  than
John?"
    They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is  of course
a  far better thing than  to have a  coat  of arms.  But it  is not the same
thing.  Worse still,  it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a
man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of
giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to  deny that he is
"a gentleman" becomes simply  a way of insulting him. When a  word ceases to
be a term  of description and  becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer
tells  you  facts about the object: it  only tells you  about the  speaker's
attitude to that object.  (A  "nice"  meal  only means  a  meal  the speaker
likes.)
    A gentleman, once it has been  spiritualised and refined out of its old
coarse,  objective  sense, means  hardly more than a  man whom  the  speaker
likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of
approval  already,  so it was not needed for that use;  on the other hand if
anyone  (say, in  a historical work) wants  to  use  it in its old sense, he
cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
    Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as
they might say "deepening,"  the  sense of the word Christian,  it too  will
speedily become a  useless  word.  In the first place, Christians themselves
will never be able  to apply it to anyone. It  is not for us to say who,  in
the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see
into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge.
    It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that  any man is, or is not,
a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which  we can  never
apply is not  going to be a  very  useful word. As for the unbelievers, they
will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined  sense.  It will become
in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian  they
will mean that they think him  a good man.  But  that  way of using the word
will be no enrichment of the language, for  we already  have the word  good.
Meanwhile, the word  Christian will have been spoiled for any  really useful
purpose it might have served.
    We must therefore  stick to  the  original,  obvious meaning. The  name
Christians was first given at  Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the  disciples," to
those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its
being  restricted  to  those  who profited by that teaching as much as  they
should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some
refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ"
than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological,
or moral  one.  It is  only a  question of  using words so  that we  can all
understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine
lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than
to say he is not a Christian.

And I'd refer to this lengthy previous thread on whether Protestants are heretics....why, by the way, I point out because of McMaster's intelligent explanations and not because I was the thread starter.  ;)

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...317.0.html
Reply
#35
C.S. Lewis just sounds like he's plagiarising G.K.Chesterton, when referring to "the definition of 'Gentleman'."
Reply
#36
(07-15-2010, 05:59 PM)Ravenonthecross Wrote: C.S. Lewis just sounds like he's plagiarising G.K.Chesterton, when referring to "the definition of 'Gentleman'."

Really?  I have read much less Chesterton that Lewis....what's the source in Chesterton?; I'd be interested to see it.
Reply
#37
I can't remember right now; how, I thought it was Chesterton that said something similar. I could be mistaken, having read it from Lewis; mistakenly having mis-attributed it to Chesterton, I don't remember.
Reply
#38
(07-15-2010, 10:21 AM)TradifiedPapist Wrote: Wandering Penitent:  That is a really helpful definition.  I ask (from special interest in the Eastern Churches) how you deal  with the problem of the filioque in their version of the Nicene Creed.  I've noticed recently that even in the Eastern Rite churches in full communion with Rome, the filioque clause has been crossed out in their missals.
disunifying mischif placed by cowards and anti roman schismatics in high places in the hiarchy did this,
i simply say the filoque no matter what scribble is in the book. And in most all the new books it has been removed.
As to who are Christians.......
Those who do what Christ commands or at least always try  to
Christ IS the Church no Church No Christians
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)