Recently in Definitions Category

Many Protestants use the word “salvation� in a very narrow and specific way. They often ask, “have you been saved�? If the answer is “yes�, then it’s accepted that this is a completed action, a thing already accomplished. But Catholics see salvation in broader terms. When a Protestant looks at Catholic documents that use the word salvation in this broader sense, they often see something that’s not really there – a denial of the sufficiency of the Cross and Christ’s sacrifice thereon.

So, when a Catholic speaks of salvation, what are these broader senses and how are they upheld scripturally?

For the purposes of this blog, I use the word Protestant in a very general way.

Protestant will include, basically, any Christian that’s not Catholic or Orthodox. This is not intended as a slight toward anyone. I know some people may be ticked by this sweeping generalization.

I was involved in a discussion with a group of people once. They protested against the Church in much the same way (and with many of the same arguments) as the original reformers. The word Protestant fit them perfectly. However, as a group and to a man, they disliked the word Protestant when applied to them. They kept insisting that they were “Bible Christians� not Protestants per se. Well, as this blog will demonstrate, we Catholics are Bible Christians as well, so to use such a term for one group is inaccurate. With the vast quantity of non-Catholic or non-Orthodox denominations out there, it’s almost impossible to find a simple and easy word to fit everyone. Though sometimes imprecise, “Protestant� fits that bill.

The use of Protestant is, therefore, a convenient single word that covers a great deal of ground. By covering so much ground, it will potentially blur things a bit. It is not intended to offend or confuse. But we gotta start somewhere.

Why do we need a whole section for definitions? After all, aren’t the terms used in religion pretty much the same for every Christian? I thought so…until about two years ago.

Protestants and Catholics often use the same words, but with radically different meanings. This was certainly no new revelation. It’s been happening a great deal since the dawn of the 20th century. In fact, it goes all the way back to the Reformation. In many cases, these differences in definitions keep us from understanding each other.

I don’t mean this as, strictly speaking, an ecumenical moment. Protestants need to understand the Catholic way of speaking if we’re going to engage in any faith discussion (either ecumenical or evangelical). The reverse of this is also true – we Catholics need to understand how Protestants use these terms in order to explain our side of many issues.

Anyone out there read 2 Timothy 2:14 lately?

Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

There is more truth here than many people would like to admit (myself included, often enough). I hope that by posting a series of definitions, we can avoid the problem of disputing over words.

And don’t worry – I fully intend to give reasons for how the definitions are used here. That’s the point.

A little more than a year ago, I got into a conversation with a Protestant blogger that used the word “anathema� quite often. She had left the Church in her teens (I think it was her teens), and felt that she was therefore placed under the anathema. She kept quoting elements of the Council of Trent and saying that she was anathema because of her belief in Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Et Cetera.

I knew there was something wrong with the way she used the word “anathema.� Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I really didn’t have time to get into it then. I needed to do some research and, one thing and another, I completely forgot about it until recently. It’s taken a while, but I finally found the details.

Point blank: All the Protestants out there can stop worrying (er…if they were worrying). It’s no longer possible to be “anathema�.

Here’s why…