Why become a Catholic if you are a Protestant?

[ImaginaryDay2]

I've found a number of the responses to only add rhetoric to the thread. What does it add, frankly? Nothing except to diminish the credibility of any valid point said poster(s) may have.

 

[Josiah]

Our Catholic Deacon insisted: There are no "bad Catholics" in the Catholic Church. Just Catholics and those CLAIMING to be Catholics.

There are folks CLAIMING something that is not true (and they likely know it). One is either Catholic or not. A Catholic just swallows whole whatever the RC Denomination itself exclusively says (officially, AT LEAST) because the RC Denomination does. And parrots that. True or false, right or wrong. If they do that, they are Catholic. If they don't, they aren't (although they may falsely CLAIM otherwise). See CCC 87.


As our Catholic Deacon so stressed, in the pews we find 3 groups of people:


CATHOLICS. They acknowledge and accept that the [Roman Catholic] Church is (in official matters) the Voice of God - infallible, authoritative, unaccountable. When IT speaks (exclusively, singularly, institutionally, officially) God Himself therefore speaks. They do NOT ask "is it true?" They ask, "Do I accept?" He admitted these are very rare, not even all the religious.


CAFETERIA "Catholics" These are not Catholics at all, although they likely embrace many of the teachings of the specific, singular [Roman Catholic] church. But they accept them because THEY have concluded these things are good or right or at least acceptable, NOT because the Church says so. Thus, by definition, they are not Catholic. They TEND to accept things - until they conclude such is weak or wrong or not up to their 'par'. They regard the [Roman Catholic] Church as potentially errant (in matters of formal doctrine), they look to some authority other than the [Roman Catholic] Church, they appoint self as the arbiter. He stated that most in the pews fall into this group. They are not Catholics at all. They are extremely dangerous to the Catholic Church. And they are quite common.


Protestants HIDING in the Church. Cafeteria Catholic tend to accept until shown lacking whereas Protestants Hiding tend to not accept until shown to be of merit. This third group - rapidly growing - may actually accept MORE teachings than Cafeteria Catholics but they've accepted them because they've ruled them as true - in a deliberate way that they know defies the authority and rule of the [Roman Catholic] Church. They treat the RCC as just another denomination - the one they choose because they agree most with it. They'll leave if they change their minds on that. Our Deacon called this group, "the greatest threat to Catholicism since Gnosticism" and note that it is by far the fastest growing group in Catholicism. He complained too that much of Catholic education these days actually "feeds" this extremely dangerous heresy. He complained too that often RCIA classes aimed at Protestant converts tends to feed this.


Here is Catholicism. The exclusive, singular, individual, particular, RC Denomination speaks - and we jump. NOT because it's true or sound or right (as if we had ANY ability to determine that!) but because the RC Denomination is THE AUTHORITY, the Vicar of God, the Mouth of God, God's Teacher on Earth.... essentially Jesus on earth. I recall a Catholic teacher speaking on some Catholic distinctive doctrine (I don't recall which) and I raised the issue of truth (I EVENTUALLY learned this is.... troubling to real Catholics). The response I got was stern and very, very, very Catholic: "Josiah. If Jesus HIMSELF stood before you and told you something, would you ask Him if that was true? Of course not! So, how in the world can you even THINK to ask that of something the [Roman Catholic] Church tells you?" Ah. That teacher was Catholic.

When I realized I was not a Catholic, I finally conclude that it was a matter of honestly, integrity, character to not lie or knowingly deceive. I stopped labeling myself Catholic. To me, it was a matter of honesty.... truth..... integrity.



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Another explanation:
I would suggest that Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, and Protestants HIDING in the Catholic Church are real and true Catholics. They do not see themselves as belonging to the specific, singular [Roman Catholic] church/denomination, but simply as Catholic, whatever branch of Catholicism that might be, recognizing that not all Catholics are in communion with Rome.

Faith is not stagnant or static. Growing in one's faith is not a "one time" event. Understanding of Doctrine and Dogma does not happen by osmosis. As one who is presently attending a Lutheran church (which would be absurd to term the "specific, singular Lutheran church" as there are many synods calling themselves 'Lutheran') I am puzzled by terms such as "in, with, and under the bread and wine". But do I necessarily reject, then, that the bread and wine are the true Body and Blood of the Lord? No. It becomes an issue where my understanding will grow over time, and (I am sure) the significance of the Eucharist will grow with it.

However, this growth in understanding and faith is denied to the Catholic... why? Because they are not sincere? They're 'hiding out'? They're 'lying to themselves'? The're being 'force fed'? I would suggest that whomever we come across who has left the Catholic church has left because that is where their faith has taken them. One who joins, has done so for the same reason. Why that's so objectionable is beyond me.

The original objection is valid here, Josiah. You're dealing with a small sub-set of folks who have left the Catholic church because of some dissatisfaction, you being one of them. But a sub-set does not represent the whole of Catholic experience.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], This thread is entitled Why become a Catholic if you are a Protestant? and your posts are not even remotely about that topic. Why are you posting here if your intent is to tell your history and opinions instead of dealing with the thread's topic?

 

[MennoSota]

A survey - real or (as in your post) imagined - is not a point it is an aggregation of opinions with no significant value for deciding what is true and what is not. In brief your post did not have a point to make it offered only an opinion.
LDS claims about ancient Israeli settlement in North America are not only incredible they are completely absurd so when you say "so does the LDS" you're talking nonsense and I suspect that you know it is nonsense.



I'd love to stick with the thread's topic and not move on to something as absurd as your claim about 'Mormons' (LDS).

I became a Catholic - being neither ignorant of holy scripture nor seeking to marry a "Roman" (as one unimaginative post suggests are the only reasons anybody who was a Protestant would become a Catholic). Here are some of the reasons I had.

• The bible. The bible has more to say than the 66 books commonly received among Protestants says. There are 73 books that constitute the canonical holy scriptures.
• Antiquity. The Church is older, much older, than the commencement of the Martin Luther's protest against various errors and faults in Catholic practise in the early 16th century.
• Continuity. The Church of the centuries from the first until the sixteenth and on to the twenty-first is according to the scriptures one church. Couple this with Antiquity and Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox perspectives on the Church have more going for them than Protestant perspectives do.
• Sacraments. The sacraments are not symbols only nor are they public testimony or private/public remembrance only. Catholics know this and teach it. Catholics point to the same views expressed by Christians in earlier centuries all the way back to the second and first centuries AD.
• Order. Maintaining order in a large body of believers that spans not just congregations but languages and nations to cover almost every land on Earth is no easy task. The Catholic Church manages it, not flawlessly, not without dissent, yet it remains one church despite all that human frailty and external as well as internal opposition brings.
• Tradition. What Christians taught and did in the past has a 'vote' in the faith of Catholics. We do not forget the past even when it brings shame but more so when it brings hope and encouragement.
• The saints. Taken with Tradition the saints offer examples of Christian faith lived in a wide variety of conditions with a wider variety of personality and foibles yet it is Christian faith and it is lived and it gives encouragement to those who take the time to look at how the faith was lived by such diverse people in such diverse conditions.
• The Faith. The doctrines and practises of Christianity have a longer history than some appear to think. They go back to the time when Jesus walked and talked and taught among men through time to the apostles and on through time to those who followed them until our own time. Taken with antiquity, continuity, and tradition this is a testimony to the enduring presence of God among his people without interruption and without 'restoration of a lost set of truths' to correct an allegedly corrupted church.
• Truth. Everybody argues for their own views as if they were true but not every argument presented is right and that is why we have so many 'versions' of the 'truth' today. Relativism - the idea that each individual has a 'version of the truth' - is widespread in public and individual thinking but it is not how things are. The truth is singular. It is true and has no versions. Versions of the truth are not the truth even if they contain some truth - be it only a little or be it a great deal - they are not the whole truth. The Catholic Church credibly presents its teaching and practise as "the fullness of truth" and that is really the only kind of truth that there is.

The only thing of importance is the 66 authentic books of the Bible. There has been over 1500 years of bad tradition leading down a false trail that does not end with faith in God.
Sola Scriptura

 

[MennoSota]

[staff edit to reflect change in quoted post]I've found a number of the responses to only add rhetoric to the thread. What does it add, frankly? Nothing except to diminish the credibility of any valid point said poster(s) may have.

Let us judge by what the scriptures actually say, not by what the traditions interpret the Bible to infer.
There is no reason to become a Romanist...ever.

 

[Josiah]

Another explanation:
I would suggest that Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, and Protestants HIDING in the Catholic Church are real and true Catholics.

My Catholic Deacon passionately disagreed with you. And I, as a Catholic then, was mandated to accept what he taught us (CCC 87).

I believe, looking back, that what he taught IS the Catholic position. It is taught many places in the Catechism and fairly constantly in Catholic training. The specific titles and categories he gave MAY be his invention (I don't know) but I think his point is precisely on target.

Now, as the Cafeteria "Catholic" I clearly was, would I yet have been welcomed to remain a member and to receive the Sacrament? Of course (maybe 90% of those in the pews would have to be exempted along with me). My own pastor told me that I agreed with Catholicism "more than most Catholics" (frankly, I STILL do; when my brother-in-law or my uncle and I talk religion, I'M the one defending the Catholic position far more than they!!!). But, I was denying the keystone of the RCC, the very point on which it stands or falls. I realized that. My realization was confirmed (including by my pastor whose counsel I sought before I left). And I felt that honesty, integrity, character required what I did. It was NOT simply wondering if Mary really was assumed into heaven.... it was the very keystone of the RCC, the point it STRESSES so passionately: IT is THE Authority - and is to be obeyed because of what it is. I gave it as one of the two chief reasons for my departure (entirely intertwined points).

Why that's so objectionable is beyond me

Humbly, respectfully, I think you have entirely missed the point.

The original objection is valid here, Josiah. You're dealing with a small sub-set of folks who have left the Catholic church because of some dissatisfaction

No. In fact the Deacon is STILL at that parish. The priest is not but I have no reason to believe he left the RCC.

And NONE of the people the Deacon spoke of had left the church, his point was that they were STILL in Catholic pews and labeled themselves Catholic. They just weren't. I think, friend, you entirely missed the point. It's about the epistemology of the RCC and the claims it makes for itself regarding Authority (a word it uses endlessly). See CCC 87 for starters.



Friend, I decided to exit this thread. Doing exactly as MC did here, I decided to create a separate thread (it's here: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5153-Reasons-I-Changed-from-Catholic-to-Lutheran ) YOU are the one who brought me back to this thread (post #6) desiring to discuss my journey HERE. That was not my desire, it was what you chose to do.



A blessed Lenten season to all.....



- Josiah
.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] - I've said my peace, and I hope you will consider thoughtfully what I've said. One who has called themselves Catholic are no less so because of anyone's opinion on the matter - even a Deacon of the church. Where he may have rushed to judgment is precisely where I've stated. If one does not accept fully the entire teaching of Catholic doctrine and dogma, it may not be because they are not true Catholics, but for many other reasons that one has not bothered to find out. And that's not necessarily the responsibility of the 'cafeteria Catholic', but (perhaps) the one to whom their care has been entrusted.

 

[Josiah]

This thread is entitled Why become a Catholic if you are a Protestant? and your posts are not even remotely about that topic. Why are you posting here if your intent is to tell your history and opinions instead of dealing with the thread's topic?

As I indicated I'd likely do, I decided to follow your exact lead and begin the same discussion for me. And again following your exact lead, I did so as a thread. http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5153-Reasons-I-Changed-from-Catholic-to-Lutheran




.

 

[Josiah]

If one does not accept fully the entire teaching of Catholic doctrine and dogma, it may not be because they are not true Catholics

Friend, I think largely, you missed the point.

And my deacon, pastor, teachers disagreed with you. Their point was that there are LOTS of people who think of themselves as "Catholics", label themselves so, sit in Catholic pews .... but since they deny the point on which Catholicism stands, aren't really Catholic (I agree, the Catechism simply regards them as "unfaithful Catholics", I realize). And again, friend, there's a difference between disagreeing on some DOGMA that is nonetheless not critical (lots of Catholics wonder about the perpetual virginity of Mary) and some dogma on which the entire entity depends.

There were issues that as obviously a Cafeteria "Catholic" I didn't accept AS DOGMA (that Assumption of Mary would be one)..... some I actually has some issues with (Purgatory in it's full modern form, Transubstantiation in its full original form would be examples).... but frankly, I'd probably still be a Cafeteria Catholic if that's all - those were not "deal brakers" for me (and frankly, if the RCC thought they were, the pews would be virtually empty). The two "deal brakers" (entirely intertwined) are the two I explained (Infallible Pope is a DOGMA - 1870 - that I also reject but it's just one of the dogmas that flows from the two things I mentioned, its not at all a separate issue). But I disagreed with the thing on which the RCC stands or falls. The issue which determines if one is a true (or as the RCC would say "faithful") Catholic. Seemed big to me. My Catholic teachers agreed. Perhaps you don't. I did what I felt was the honest thing, out of a sense of integrity. My Catholic family, friends and teachers supported me. Some time later, the Sunday I was Confirmed in the LCMS, one of those Catholic teachers and her family attended the service, to support me.



Friend, as you know, 20 hours of when MC started this thread, I decided to follow MC's lead and began a thread (although I choose to personalize it rather than MC's model). It's here: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5153-Reasons-I-Changed-from-Catholic-to-Lutheran



A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Another explanation:
I would suggest that Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, and Protestants HIDING in the Catholic Church are real and true Catholics. They do not see themselves as belonging to the specific, singular [Roman Catholic] church/denomination, but simply as Catholic, whatever branch of Catholicism that might be, recognizing that not all Catholics are in communion with Rome.

Faith is not stagnant or static. Growing in one's faith is not a "one time" event. Understanding of Doctrine and Dogma does not happen by osmosis. As one who is presently attending a Lutheran church (which would be absurd to term the "specific, singular Lutheran church" as there are many synods calling themselves 'Lutheran') I am puzzled by terms such as "in, with, and under the bread and wine". But do I necessarily reject, then, that the bread and wine are the true Body and Blood of the Lord? No. It becomes an issue where my understanding will grow over time, and (I am sure) the significance of the Eucharist will grow with it.

However, this growth in understanding and faith is denied to the Catholic... why? Because they are not sincere? They're 'hiding out'? They're 'lying to themselves'? The're being 'force fed'? I would suggest that whomever we come across who has left the Catholic church has left because that is where their faith has taken them. One who joins, has done so for the same reason. Why that's so objectionable is beyond me.

The original objection is valid here, Josiah. You're dealing with a small sub-set of folks who have left the Catholic church because of some dissatisfaction, you being one of them. But a sub-set does not represent the whole of Catholic experience.

People in every church, denomination, and independent Christian group have varying degrees of knowledge and varying degrees of confidence about expressing their views; that being so it is to be expected that in any given congregation some people will be knowledgeable some will not be knowledgeable and many will be marginally interested in the specifics of this or that item of theology that may be of vital interest to whoever is conducting a survey or something similar to a survey. Catholic Christians are no different from others in this facet of human psychology.

What interests me is why people who are Protestants and who have/had a lively faith in God when they were Protestants decided to become Catholic. In the first post I gave some reasons that people mention. I have a fair amount of experience with converts to Catholicism from Protestant denominations because I work in my parish both as a catechist and as a sponsor for people who seek to be received into the Catholic Church. I've sponsored four people in the past five years who made their journey from a Protestant denomination into the Catholic Church. I have catechised another eleven people making the journey from a Protestant denomination into the Catholic Church. The items in the first post were prominent in the thinking and journeys of the people with whom I worked.

 

[Josiah]

People in every church, denomination, and independent Christian group have varying degrees of knowledge and varying degrees of confidence about expressing their views; that being so it is to be expected that in any given congregation some people will be knowledgeable some will not be knowledgeable and many will be marginally interested in the specifics of this or that item of theology that may be of vital interest to whoever is conducting a survey or something similar to a survey. Catholic Christians are no different from others in this facet of human psychology.

Here's the distinction you are missing or evading.... It's one thing to be IGNORANT (yes, that's common in all denominations) and REJECTING.

As you know, the RCC denomination states that its members are to docilicly swallow whole whatever it itself currently tells them (in official, formal matters of faith and morals at least). I gave a few verbatim quotes. And as a formal Catholic myself, I KNOW that this is DRILLED into Catholics from birth; even as a kid I KNEW this was what I was mandated to do. It is what makes a Catholic Catholic. The Catechism indicates it's what makes a Catholic "faithful" but our deacon, pastor and teachers simply got to the point: it's what makes you Catholic period (I noted you didn't disagree with them). For the RC Denomination, it's not a matter of being educated, it's a matter of being docilicly submissive.


What we were taught is that it's very, very simple: Either you accept that the RCC is Jesus on Earth and accept IT itself as THE Authority - and swallow whole whatever IT says cuz IT does (and thus you are a Catholic) or you don't (and thus you aren't a Catholic). Simple. I realized I was not a Catholic. And to me, it was a matter of honesty, integrity, character..... I could not knowingly LIE that I was a Catholic when I was not. A LOT of "Catholics" are comfortable with lying, I was not.

What interests me is why people who are Protestants and who have/had a lively faith in God when they were Protestants decided to become Catholic.

I didn't go in that direction, and I'm aware of only one at CH who did. Of course, we all know Lizzie's story....

People have LOTS of reasons for leaving a church.... There are THIRTY MILLION ex-Catholics just currently just in the USA alone, more ex-Catholics than the largest two Protestant denominations put together. It's a HUGE group, the second largest religious group in the USA, greater than the total population of Australia and New Zealand put together... EX-Catholics. And that's the RCC's estimate, I suspect it's even more. I'm sure there are countless reasons among them. What I focus on is those who left for theological reasons. That number is enormous... about half of the total membership of my Lutheran parish are EX-Catholics. HALF. And from my conversations, most left because they disagreed with the dogma of that denomination. That's my experience, too.

In my Catholic parish, there were converts. We had an active RCIA class. Nearly all were spouses of Catholics (or those engaged to a Catholic). Marriage seems to be BY FAR the most successful evangelism tool of the RCC, good Catholics staying and motivating their spouse to join. But I'm sure they were alone. There IS much appealing in the RCC - especially compared to the loose, shallow Non-Denom "Evangelicalism" that is becoming do dominate in the USA. Frankly, while I think Lizzie the Airhead made the move out of ignorance (and she admits out of her psychological disease, lol) - I think she made a smart move changing from a emotion based "Evangelical" parish to the RCC: not the way I'd go, obviously, but an improvement. I'm aware of some Catholic apologetic work and it's often good.... I think a LOT of Christians would benefit changing from "Evangelical" to Catholic. But MY (admittedly very limited) experience is that that is tiny. The RCC is gushing members, bleeding buckets (it's hardly alone!) - many formally Catholic areas have become ghost towns (does NOT make me happy!!!!). I just don't see any flood of active Christians flooding into the RCC for THEOLOGICAL reasons - some "Evangelicals" (but even there, it's tiny - those going the other direction are many, many, many times more). I know of none, no Protestant who went Catholic for theological reasons. I have two family members who converted but because they married an active Catholic family member and wanted their new family to be united in religion - but in both cases, they are current FAR less Catholic than I am. Even when I talk with cradle Catholics in my family, I'M usually the one defending a Catholic view!




I gave my story of converting from the RCC to Lutheranism here: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5153-Reasons-I-Changed-from-Catholic-to-Lutheran



A blessed Lenten season to all...



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Its true. The membership statistics indicate that the RCC is holding pretty steady, unlike some of the best-known Protestant denominations, but that is only because of the great number of immigrants from Latin America. They at least start out in this country as nominally RC. Were it not for that group, the church would be experiencing a significant decline.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One man who I sponsored in his RCIA journey into the Catholic Church came from a Missionary Alliance background. He mentioned unity as his primary reason for becoming a Catholic even though he had been a Protestant with a lively faith in God who was active in his denomination.

• Unity. Unity is a gift from God to the Church which makes of many people with many gifts and all sorts of personalities one body with one faith. The Catholic Church has the charism of unity despite every effort of the world and every effort of opponents without and within to destroy her unity. There have been schisms over the centuries and today some break away to form their own bodies yet the unity of the church is not thereby ended. Unity remains because it is a gift from God and God maintains the unity of his Church.

Some scoff at Catholic Church unity and mock her with all sorts of ignorant claims about divisions and some true claims about interior squabbles so no one ought to mistake unity for perfect agreement in every matter of practise, faith, and behaviour nevertheless the Catholic Church remains one and has remained one from the beginning.

 

[Albion]

Some scoff at Catholic Church unity and mock her with all sorts of ignorant claims about divisions and some true claims about interior squabbles so no one ought to mistake unity for perfect agreement in every matter of practise, faith, and behaviour nevertheless the Catholic Church remains one and has remained one from the beginning.

I am actually amazed that Catholics will say such a thing, but they do. The Great Schism of 1054 saw the biggest single breakup in church history, then there was the Protestant Reformation in which the major reformed faiths broke away, and that is to say nothing of the Old Catholics in the 1800s or the Waldensians, Hussites, Cathars, and others.

There is no denying that the Catholic Church has experienced the biggest and most consequential splits of any Christian church.

 

[Josiah]

Some scoff at Catholic Church unity and mock her with all sorts of ignorant claims about divisions and some true claims about interior squabbles so no one ought to mistake unity for perfect agreement in every matter of practise, faith, and behaviour nevertheless the Catholic Church remains one and has remained one from the beginning.

I am actually amazed that Catholics will say such a thing, but they do. The Great Schism of 1054 saw the biggest single breakup in church history, then there was the Protestant Reformation in which the major reformed faiths broke away, and that is to say nothing of the Old Catholics in the 1800s or the Waldensians, Hussites, Cathars, and others.

There is no denying that the Catholic Church has experienced the biggest and most consequential splits of any Christian church.

Sometimes Catholics make SILLY claims (obviously not thinking it through)....



Yes, The Catholic Church is one denomination. The LCMS is also one denomination. The United Methodist Church is one denomination. This proves..... um....... what? :dunno:


Yes, The Catholic Church is in institutional and official doctrinal unity with IT ITSELF exclusively, singularly, uniquely, individually (and with NO OTHER) ..... There is no other denomination on the planet that has LESS unity than that (because it is impossible to have less than what the RCC has). This proves..... um...... what? :dunno:


This is EXACTLY the kind of silly, laughable Catholic talking point that Lizzie the Airhead turns into whole YouTube videos - making a fool of herself. The kind of silly talking point some Catholics parrot over and over and over and over obviously NEVER stopping and THINKING about it before they just mindlessly echo it.


Yes, the RCC is OFFICIALLY, FORMALLY, as a DENOMINATION in full unity with IT ITSELF ALONE and NO other. Just like every other denomination on the planet. This proves what? :dunno:


Catholics of course are not in unity with each other or the denomination that owns and operates the parish they participate in, but the DENOMINATION is in full unity with itself. . It's just that most other denominations have at least SOME official unity with others (for example, the LCMS is in full doctrinal unity with DOZENS of other denominations).... the Episcopal Church in the USA is in some unity with the Anglican Communiion. But there is no denomination on the planet and in all human history with LESS unity that the RCC has because that would be impossible, it's impossible to be in FORMAL, OFFICAL unity with only and exclusively it itself alone in those matters that self alone regards as essential for self to be unity with self about, NOTHING can have less unity than that, what the RCC has. I'm in unity with me myself alone in what I alone think I alone need to be in unity with me alone concerning.... this proves.... um...... what? :dunno:



I think I was about ten years old when I began to realize the absurdity of a lot of these Catholic talking points (Lizzie has yet to realize this because clearly she's never stopped to THINK).



:dunno:



- Josiah





.

 

[Albion]

Sometimes Catholics make SILLY claims (obviously not thinking it through)....



Yes, The Catholic Church is one denomination. The LCMS is also one denomination. The United Methodist Church is one denomination. This proves..... um....... what? :dunno:.

What it boils down to is this: It is a part of Roman Catholic thinking/propaganda/education/whatever to say that any church group that leaves the fold--or, equally, is expelled from the fold of the RCC--ceases to be related to the other part except in the loosest sense of still being Christian (albeit heretical or defective). They are stricken from the book of Christian history by the RCC and are deemed to be a new entity.

BUT if any of the parts that have split from the RCC (or the RCC has split from them) split again, or even if they have not experienced subsequent splits, the RCC lumps them together with all the other parts that once were together with the RCC, and treats them as an amorphous mass of "non-Catholics," all cut from the same cloth. Whether or not there is much that they hold in common in belief or practice, the RCC juxtaposes them, together, against the RCC alone. The Vatican goes so far as to deny them even the name or description of church.

Protestants do not engage in this kind of "one vs. everyone else" verbal trickery owing, mainly, to the conviction of Protestants that the true church of Christ is the mystical assembly of all those who are known to God to be true believers, i.e. all those who have faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.

But they could, in theory, still adopt the RCC approach to describing themselves and other denominations. For example, the LCMS (or the Church of England or any other) could say that it is the truest church because it holds to the purest practices and beliefs, unlike all other Christian denominations which, being in error, are brothers under the theological skin.


.