RCC/Protestant Divisions

[Kurieuo]

Firstly, this topic is not to bash Catholics nor vice-versa, although given the majority here are non-Catholic I doubt it would be vice-versa. However, this is a topic that has been pressing on me which I'd like others' opinion on.

Now Catholic are orthodox, in the sense they're not really a cult like JWs or Mormons. The RCC traditionally believe Christ died and was resurrected, and through Christ we are saved (depite a seeming watering down of Christ being the only way by some more liberal Catholics). And Protestants also hold to this orthodox belief. Yet, as a Protestant, if I am asked what I disagree with Catholics on, I will state I disagree with the need for priests (since Christ was the final priest and no other can waive sins, especially other sinners), the succession of popes leading the church (given Peter was "Pope"-like, Father of the Church and to have successors, there appears to me obvious breakages in the lineage of Popes given the corruptness and anti-Christian acts condoned and ordered by various Popes throughout history), the veneration of saints and Mary to the point of praying to them by many Catholics (whether it is actually sanctioned by the RCC I know this still happens), and the supremacy of the RCC.

Now in the past, those who disagreed with the RCC may have been hunted down, burnt at the stake, beheaded, tortured and persecuted. Not to say it was always one-sided, as RCCs too were also hated by many Protestants and wrongly so. Yet, in RCC there is something more dire when the Pope who is meant to be Father of the Christian Church, persecute of other Christians who did not agree with every RC doctrine. It seems to be the Church many times throughout history, and still today by many Catholics, takes first priority in RCC theology. Next comes Christ and very closely thereafter Mary. So to not agree with the RCC in the past was to not be Christian and labelled a heretic worthy of death regardless of any belief in Christ.

Today in the 21st century, in the age of political correctness, this has seemingly all been laid aside. Whereas in the past Protestants would be burnt as heretics, or vice-versa Protestants would revolt and tear down RC churches and kill Catholics, today there is somewhat less care about the differences. Even a generation ago, Catholics were being warned against Protestants, and certainly no Catholic likes to see their offspring turn Protestant. But there is so much less care today. I mean my mother-in-law (a devout Catholic) has told me how she found it confusing being warned her whole life against Protestants, and now some priests tell her that being Protestant is nothing to be concerned with.

In all this, I feel the hatchet is being buried. As long as the envelope of acceptance isn't pushed outside of orthodoxy to a form of pluralism where Christ in no longer the at the centre, that is fine. Now I believe there are Catholics that are saved - Byblos, my wife's mother, and many others no doubt. Yet, and this is where my questioning began more-so, my mother-in-law wanted to take my daughter to mass for Ash Wednesday. We told her no, and whether she was just playing naive, she tried ignoring our wishes to continue talking about going on the bus with our daughter and having a day trip out until I was more firm. That night at dinner, she also made some comment about my wife being half Jew-Catholic (her father was Jewish, though by no means relgiously so), when she knows her daughter is Protestant. Whether she was reflecting on it as you belong to the religion you're born with, or just being coy, I don't know but I expect the latter of the two.

Now at the end of the day, while Catholics (at least more conservative ones) still hold to orthodox beliefs, I'm not going to send mixed messages to my kids and put them whether they are aware to it or not. But then, even here at this board -- moderators step in to have your say -- there seems to be a strong willingness to keep the hatchet of differences buried. Don't get me wrong, I accept many Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, yet at the same time there were differences that caused people on both sides to refuse to renounciate and die under torture for these differences. Today, if push came to shove, a Protestant might just shrug at a Catholic and vice-versa as long as they don't try to convert them over to their church (except your ultra-conservative Protestants who would not see any Catholic as saved or vice-versa with ultra-conservative Catholics).

I'd be interested to know where others stand in this Catholic/Protestant divide. Should we be harking back and examining the differences a bit more closely? Are you firmly anti-Catholic (if Protestant) or vice-versa if Catholic? What if your child wanted to go over to the other side -- would this be acceptable to you or would you fear for their soul? If you would have any fear then why, considering it is Christ that saves and not any particular church or denomination?

Again, I make a call to keep this discussion civil. As in, feel free to be open with your opinions of Catholicism or vice-versa, but this is not to debate who is/isn't correct. This is a touchy subject, but I request everyone to be open with their beliefs in a respectful manner, but bite their tongues from debating or going on the attack.

[RickD]

Kurieuo,

I noticed something from your post, that pertained to me growing up. You talked about the divide between Protestants and Catholics. My Mom and Dad were Protestant. In fact, one reason why my Mom wanted to marry my Dad, was because he was Protestant.(Where we grew up, the overwhelming majority of people were Roman Catholic). There are many Protestants, as well as Catholics, who are not saved. Being Protestant, does not equal being saved. Trusting in Christ, is how we are saved, not belonging to a certain church, or denomination. I just wanted to speak about that, because a lot of times in these Protestant/Catholic discussions, one side is saying that if you're not Protestant, or if you're not Catholic, then you're not saved. The power of salvation, is in the finished work of Christ. Not in any institution. So, I could say, that my wife was saved, and left the Catholic Church she was brought up in. And I was saved, and left the Protestantism that my family knew.

[Byblos]

Again, I make a call to keep this discussion civil. As in, feel free to be open with your opinions of Catholicism or vice-versa, but this is not to debate who is/isn't correct. This is a touchy subject, but I request everyone to be open with their beliefs in a respectful manner, but bite their tongues from debating or going on the attack.

Hmm, I'm not sure it's even possible to address all the topics you've listed without getting into a debate of some sort. For example, I take exception to the claim that killing was sanctioned by popes. That's not to say there weren't corrupt popes but even at that, this in and of itself does not damage the RCC's claim of infallibility. We can delve into that if you wish but then we'd be starting a debate .

Here's what I have to say on this, I truly believe in my heart of hearts and in the deepest part of my soul that we (Catholics and Protestants) have much, much more in common than we have differences. This is none too evident than in the famous Catholic/Lutheran joint declaration I repeatedly reference (and which Bart also referenced recently). It can be found here. Before we even begin a discussion of this sort (looking for our differences), I URGE you (everyone) to read this joint declaration and see for yourselves what we have in common first.

Having said that, where do I see our differences? Simply put, they can be boiled down to one and only one word: AUTHORITY. Try as you might, every subject we discuss will inevitably come down to that, who has the FINAL authority to interpret scripture. If we can agree on this (and I am under no illusion that this will happen any time soon), then I promise you ALL of our differences will undoubtedly disappear.

Why does authority make sense to me? There are many reasons but I won't list all here (not yet at least). Chief among them, though, is that I cannot for the life of me believe that Christ would have left his church guide-less. I know, I know, before anyone start jumping down my throat with 'but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us', I don't see that as an effective argument considering the multitude and often contradictory interpretations. The answer to that is usually 'well, we may disagree on non-essential things but the essentials we do agree on'. And that is simply not true. Take baptism for example and the several threads on it lately. Or OSAS and assurance. Etc, Etc. The way I see it authority is a must. The analogy I most often use is that of the role of the United Stated Supreme Court in interpreting the U.S. constitution. If it weren't for SCOTUS, surely the inevitable result is anarchy.

I think I've said enough for now. I will try to limit my involvement in this thread to answering questions about Catholicism if there are any. I'm really not interested in a debate either.

Blessings to all.

[Silvertusk]

Blimey Kurieuo, now you are asking for trouble.

I personally believe that all Catholics are destined for Hell.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I am of course joking.

I do not have a problem with Catholics. I believe they are saved - but I think personally they are letting certain doctorines getting in the way of a more pure worship with more emphasis on certain dogma and traditions - such as the examples you have mentioned. I think they are severely misguided when it comes to Mary and in some cases verges on idol worship. I believe the Catholic Church have a history where large parts of it they should not be proud off which goes to show even more that a church cannot be headed by fallible man. And the pope is fallible - he is just a man and is not God's representative on earth - the Holy Spirit is that.

Protestants are of course perfect in every way.......not. There are fundamentalist camps in Protestants that are very dangerous and I believe are not Christians - such as severe YECers who state that you can only be a Christian if you believe in YEC. The KKK, Extremem Calvanists etc. Fundamentalism is a cult - whether is be Catholic or Protestant. I believe these people come under the group of people Jesus was referring to in Matthew 7:23


That is my humble opinion on the matter

Silvertusk

[Byblos]

I think personally they are letting certain doctorines getting in the way of a more pure worship with more emphasis on certain dogma and traditions - such as the examples you have mentioned. I think they are severely misguided when it comes to Mary and in some cases verges on idol worship. I believe the Catholic Church have a history where large parts of it they should not be proud off which goes to show even more that a church cannot be headed by fallible man. And the pope is fallible - he is just a man and is not God's representative on earth - the Holy Spirit is that.

Without getting into the whole Mary subject, I just wanted to clarify one thing about our worship habits. Central to a Catholic's worship is the Sunday (or daily) mass and the central subject of worship at mass is Christ, all Christ, and nothing but Christ, period. If Mary is mentioned at all (and it's not necessary that she is), she is mentioned in an intercessory prayer request (where we ask that she pray for us in the Hail Mary). Again, whether or not intercessory prayers are even possible and the whole debate about the communion of saints is besides the point I'm making.

[Kurieuo]

Again, I make a call to keep this discussion civil. As in, feel free to be open with your opinions of Catholicism or vice-versa, but this is not to debate who is/isn't correct. This is a touchy subject, but I request everyone to be open with their beliefs in a respectful manner, but bite their tongues from debating or going on the attack.

Hmm, I'm not sure it's even possible to address all the topics you've listed without getting into a debate of some sort. For example, I take exception to the claim that killing was sanctioned by popes. That's not to say there weren't corrupt popes but even at that, this in and of itself does not damage the RCC's claim of infallibility. We can delve into that if you wish but then we'd be starting a debate .

Yeah, I knew I should have left that out... but this is one we can discuss privately once I dig up some cases I recall reading.

Here's what I have to say on this, I truly believe in my heart of hearts and in the deepest part of my soul that we (Catholics and Protestants) have much, much more in common than we have differences. This is none too evident than in the famous Catholic/Lutheran joint declaration I repeatedly reference (and which Bart also referenced recently). It can be found here. Before we even begin a discussion of this sort (looking for our differences), I URGE you (everyone) to read this joint declaration and see for yourselves what we have in common first.

I did not follow discussions, but I will read it. I'm sure it will be very interesting and beneficial to me.

Having said that, where do I see our differences? Simply put, they can be boiled to one and only one word: AUTHORITY. Try as you might, every subject we discuss will inevitably come down to that, who has the FINAL authority to interpret scripture. If we can agree on this (and I am under no illusion that this will happen any time soon), then I promise you ALL of our differences will undoubtedly disappear.

And I believe this is my #1 reason I object to RCC, since I don't believe it has a valid claim to such authority...

Why does authority make sense to me? There are many reasons but I won't list all here (not yet at least). Chief among them, though, is that I cannot for the life of me believe that Christ would have left his church guide-less. I know, I know, before anyone start jumping down my throat with 'but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us', I don't see that as an effective argument considering the multitude and often contradictory interpretations. The answer to that is usually 'well, we may disagree on non-essential things but the essentials we do agree on'. And that is simply not true. Take baptism for example and the several threads on it lately. Or OSAS and assurance. Etc, Etc. The way I see it authority is a must. The analogy I most often use is that of the role of the United Stated Supreme Court in interpreting the U.S. constitution. If it weren't for SCOTUS, surely the inevitable result is anarchy.

Authority is something, but doctrines and interpretations still need to be reasoned. Otherwise reformation could not have happened in the RCC as it did. This in itself shows while the RCC as an authority is to be respected (and I respect much of their beliefs), this does not mean uncritical acceptance -- since they could be wrong on various issues which may then be further reformed down the track.

There is a fallacy I learnt in my philosophy class on a Catholic campus: argumentum ad verecundiam. An argument that appeals to reverence or authority. Not that such can't be noted, but on its own, it's not enough to justify rational acceptance. Hence, our issue with atheists who come here and state the majority of (or wrongly "all") scientists believe we evolved and so only someone unenlightened would disagree.

I think I've said enough for now. I will try to limit my involvement in this thread to answering questions about Catholicism if there are any. I'm really not interested in a debate either.

I was hoping you would respond, so thanks! Also, just wondering, how would you feel if your son/daughter and their family were Protestant and actively attended say a Baptist church or similar?

[Canuckster1127]

Catholicism has touched me and family in many ways. I am our family historian of sorts and I know from doing that work that there are branches of my Family that are Catholic (also Church of Ireland with strong Orangemen.) My mother was raised Catholic. I have a brother who married a Catholic and converted and is practicing and is sincere in his faith and practice. My mentor in Biblical Literature too, while he was Methodist at the time I studied under him, later converted to Catholicism.

Part of the dropping of the barriers I think has to do with the globalization of relationships and influences to where there is better understanding and tolerance of people.

I think it's ridiculous for Protestants (of which I'm one) to generalize and condemn Catholics collectively. Where do we think we came from? Do we think that Christianity just suddenly appeared in the 16th century with the reformation and everyone prior to that was wrong about everything and there were no genuine Christians? Many Protestants do not recognize that in the wake of the Reformation there was a counter-reformation within the Catholic church where many of the legitimate concerns expressed which fueled some of the Reformation were addressed. Too, many of the forces that drove the Reformation were political and economic as well.

I'm not a fan at all of Institutional Church as I've made clear in recent years and there is no church that is more Institutional than the RCC. Do I have some concerns with some elements of Catholicism? Yes I do. I'm concerned for those who are nominally Catholic for whom their faith is social. That's not unique to Catholicism. There's pleny of Protestants for whom the same could be said.

In the end, I believe God takes people one at a time and the issues there will not be are you Catholic or are you Protestant but where do you stand in relationship with God through Jesus Christ. On that basis, I'm not afraid to identify issues where I part paths with Catholicism. Overall however, I don't see broad issues with Catholicism that impugn the nature and character of God.

[Byblos]

Having said that, where do I see our differences? Simply put, they can be boiled to one and only one word: AUTHORITY. Try as you might, every subject we discuss will inevitably come down to that, who has the FINAL authority to interpret scripture. If we can agree on this (and I am under no illusion that this will happen any time soon), then I promise you ALL of our differences will undoubtedly disappear.

And I believe this is my #1 reason I object to RCC, since I don't believe it has a valid claim to such authority...

Of course, otherwise you'd be Catholic .

Why does authority make sense to me? There are many reasons but I won't list all here (not yet at least). Chief among them, though, is that I cannot for the life of me believe that Christ would have left his church guide-less. I know, I know, before anyone start jumping down my throat with 'but we have the Holy Spirit to guide us', I don't see that as an effective argument considering the multitude and often contradictory interpretations. The answer to that is usually 'well, we may disagree on non-essential things but the essentials we do agree on'. And that is simply not true. Take baptism for example and the several threads on it lately. Or OSAS and assurance. Etc, Etc. The way I see it authority is a must. The analogy I most often use is that of the role of the United Stated Supreme Court in interpreting the U.S. constitution. If it weren't for SCOTUS, surely the inevitable result is anarchy.

Authority is something, but doctrines and interpretations still need to be reasoned. Otherwise reformation could not have happened in the RCC as it did. This in itself shows while the RCC as an authority is to be respected (and I respect much of their beliefs), this does not mean uncritical acceptance -- since they could be wrong on various issues which may then be further reformed down the track.

There is a fallacy I learnt in my philosophy class on a Catholic campus: argumentum ad verecundiam. An argument that appeals to reverence or authority. Not that such can't be noted, but on its own, it's not enough to justify rational acceptance. Hence, our issue with atheists who come here and state the majority of (or wrongly "all") scientists believe we evolved and so only someone unenlightened would disagree.

Unless of course that authority was in fact handed down by Christ himself, then the argument is an appeal to the ultimate authority. I know you disagree with this but if you grant as a possibly, then many, if not all, of the issues we are talking about will no longer be issues.

I think I've said enough for now. I will try to limit my involvement in this thread to answering questions about Catholicism if there are any. I'm really not interested in a debate either.

I was hoping you would respond, so thanks! Also, just wondering, how would you feel if your son/daughter and their family were Protestant and actively attended say a Baptist church or similar?

When my mom passed away recently, I had the chance to get together with my cousin who is a priest. He has a PHD in theology and philosophy, and oversees the theology curriculum of several Catholic universities in Lebanon. In other words, he is infinitely smarter than I am. I asked him that very question and his answer absolutely SHOCKED me. I was expecting to get a tongue-lashing at even entertaining such an evil thought for which I will have to do penance for the rest of my natural life. Here's what he said verbatim (well, translated): Anything that brings a person to Christ can only be good.

Before this, I probably would have had a problem with my son converting. Now, not so much. I still would do my utmost due diligence to educate him on the history of his church and why I believe what I believe, but if ultimately that is where God is leading him then who am I to stop him. Islam on the other hand, I'd have to just shoot him.

[RickD]

Canuckster said:

Overall however, I don't see broad issues with Catholicism that impugn the nature and character of God.

Bart, this statement lit a little light bulb in my head. In light of some other threads, where the nature and character of God were in question in a specific protestant denomination, I had never really thought about it pertaining to Catholicism. While I have my problems with certain things within Catholicism, that I don't feel are biblically based, Catholicism's nature of God has never really been an issue with me. I must retire to my Abbey, to meditate on this.

Byblos wrote:

Before this, I probably would have had a problem with my son converting. Now, not so much. I still would do my utmost due diligence to educate him on the history of his church and why I believe what I believe, but if ultimately that is where God is leading him then who am I to stop him. Islam on the other hand, I'd have to just shoot him.

Byblos, I'm curious, if you believe both Catholics and Protestants are Christians, if they trust in Christ, why did you use the term "converting"? Do you really see changing from Catholicism to a Protestant denomination, as converting?

[Byblos]

Byblos, I'm curious, if you believe both Catholics and Protestants are Christians, if they trust in Christ, why did you use the term "converting"? Do you really see changing from Catholicism to a Protestant denomination, as converting?

It's funny you mention that Rick because I thought exactly the same thing and had meant to edit it but I thought it was too late since others may have already seen it. To answer your question, no I do not see it as converting.

[Jac3510]

A few things:

1. Whether or not the Catholic Church really engaged in the persecution of Christians, I would argue that violence is never a means of resolving religious conflict between individuals. That being said, we should be very careful in accusing "the other side" of religious violence, because while it is a historical fact that people were burned at the stake for disagreeing with Catholic theology, it is not so clear--once you get into the details of it--that you can just say that the Catholic church persecuted non-Catholics. It's much easier, OTOH, to make that charge against Protestants (e.g., Calvin . . . he was an ugly man . . .)

2. If my main point in (1) is accepted, then whether or not we should examine our differences, we ought not attempt to resolve them by violent means. If that is to be labeled as "burying the hatchet," then so be it.

3. It is obviously possible to have Christian fellowship with those with whom we a degree of theological disagreement. That is to say, we do not require 100% doctrinal agreement to have Christian fellowship with someone else.

4. If (3) is true, then the question of Christian fellowship between the Catholic and non-Catholic is what degree and on what issues is theological disagreement permissible while still maintaining Christian fellowship. That is obviously a theological question to be answered within the confines of one's own theological perspective. As such, a Catholic may have one answer and a Protestant another (and still another Protestant another). Thus, it may be possible for one man to be willing to extend Christian fellowship and another who is not.

5. In general, I think Protestants ought to be VERY careful with (read, ought to stop using) words like "cult," "unorthodox," and "heretic." The reason is simple. On what basis do we determine someone to be unorthodox? Either (a) because the individual (or group as a whole) disagrees with some teaching of Scripture (e.g., the Trinity), or (b) because the individual (or group as a whole) disagrees with some historically held Christian belief.

• 5a. If (a), then the Protestant accusing the other of heresy is at best question begging, because he is simply claiming that the other does not agree with his own interpretation of Scripture. On that count, the JW could just as easily say he is following Scripture and that I am a heretic because of what I believe.
  
  5b. If (b), then the Protestant accusing the other of heresy is being inconsistent in his critique, for he himself rejects more than a few teachings that the church has historically taught; if he did not, he would be Catholic!

6. Thus, we ought not say that JWs are cultists but we simply have Scriptural disagreements with Catholics. Protestants ought to say that we have severe disagreements with JWs and lesser, but still serious, disagreements with Catholics, etc. The label of unorthodox or heretic or whatever, though, ultimately becomes meaningless.

Bottom line: I think that we can and should be willing to examine and state plainly the differences in theologies among Christian groups. We ought not be offended when one group says of us that we are wrong, even if, by that group's theology, we are not "saved." They are being no more and no less offensive than Christians are who lovingly say that Muslims are Hellbound (if the persist in their Islamic beliefs). That is, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

[Byblos]

Always good to hear from you Jac.

[RickD]

Byblos, I'm curious, if you believe both Catholics and Protestants are Christians, if they trust in Christ, why did you use the term "converting"? Do you really see changing from Catholicism to a Protestant denomination, as converting?

It's funny you mention that Rick because I thought exactly the same thing and had meant to edit it but I thought it was too late since others may have already seen it. To answer your question, no I do not see it as converting.

Good recovery, Byblos.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Welcome back, Jac! The average IQ of the Forum just went up 10 points.

FL

[RickD]

Welcome back, Jac! The average IQ of the Forum just went up 10 points.

FL

Until you posted, FL. Then it went back down.