Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"

[Major1]

Do Roman Catholics rely on TRADITION, or on the authority they vest in the papacy?

If you ask an Orthodox Christian person, they will inform you that it is the latter, and not Tradition. Early Church Tradition did not define papal primacy in the way it has been redefined in the Roman Church, so how can it be said that the RC is in keeping with Church Tradition? The great schism, between the Roman Church and the Orthodox sees, did happen for certain reasons that were more than just political: questions over authority being one of them.

What is the difference between Tradition and the authority vested in the Pope?????

 

[PeaceB]

You are a Christian by faith my friend and you are in the Catholic church by your choice.

Yes, my choice to accept the grace that God offered me.

 

[PeaceB]

What is the difference between Tradition and the authority vested in the Pope?????

Tradition comprises the teachings of our Lord Jesus and the Apostles that are not recorded in Sacred Scripture. You yourself believe some of that Tradition.

Edit: Actually, I think the above definition is technically incorrect from a Catholic perspective. We would consider Tradition to include both Sacred Scripture (written Tradition) and oral Tradition (the teachings not found in Scripture).

 

[truefiction1]

What is the difference between Tradition and the authority vested in the Pope?????

The Roman church has created, in her definitions of papal supremacy, an authority that is above/cut off from/separate from the Church: the papacy. Holy Tradition is the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. There is no higher authority than this Holy Tradition.

 

[FireDragon76]

That sounds more like science-fiction worthy of L. Ron Hubbard than anything I recognize any historic Christian church teaching (rapture and rosicruceans)

 

[thecolorsblend]

In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

I think there's a fair amount of truth to that. In fairness, there were a several scriptures I was never really able to make sense out of when filtering them through a Protestant tradition. Filtering them through Catholicism did the trick, however.

But even that speaks to the issue of authority. I'm satisfied with my Church's authority as the Magisterium is a living authority which can (and does) respond to advancements in technology, society, etc.

That's the ultimate root of the rift. But other issues have emerged which aren't helping matters. I think a lot of Catholics view Protestants with a bit of suspicion as innovators and interlopers, and potentially gravely mistaken on top of those things. Protestants, for their part, seem to view Catholics as stuffy, unwilling to consider other points of view.

 

[GingerBeer]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.

Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Gee, if I were a Catholic I'd be offended by all the anti-Catholic statements in your post.

 

[fhansen]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.

Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Catholics simply recognize that, no matter how one cuts it, the Protestant emperor has no clothes. Scripture produces disunity where its used as the sole source of authority. This is because, in actuality, the individual interpreter becomes his own authority, his own little pope if you will, even as he'd vehemently deny his infallibility in his interpretations.

But the Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the new Testament was even written. And there can only be "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Even logically the necessity for a visible entity, established by God for the purpose of preserving, clarifying, and teaching the faith, having a continuously traceable historical link to the beginnings of Christianity, proves itself to be evident over time.

 

[GingerBeer]

Growing up I didn't know anything about Christianity, much less anything about the differences between Catholic and protestant. I was a bit stunned, when shortly after I was confirmed Catholic how much animus some protestants have towards the Catholic Church and more specifically the anti-Catholic publishing industry. It's enough to make a lesser person upset.

Fortunately, God has placed me in a very Catholic community and IRL I know very few protestants and the ones I do know are smart enough or kind enough not to come after my Catholic faith. That's the rub with protestants, it takes a while to figure out what flavor your dealing with.

Frankly, I pretty much have all of protestantism on ignore. There's nothing there for me, and the Church certainly doesn't need me to protest the protestants. Besides, protestantism is doomed. Its greatest hallmark is division and there is no mechanism, not even the Holy Bible, available to them to patch it back together. Protestantism will continue to fracture and splinter itself out of existence and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Protestant denominations have been dividing for almost 500 years and they are not dead yet. Some of the early ones are gone but some remain. Lots of denominations have come and gone but there are descendant denominations around. I doubt that they will be gone any time soon even if you optimistically wish it.

 

[fhansen]

Do Roman Catholics rely on TRADITION, or on the authority they vest in the papacy?

If you ask an Orthodox Christian person, they will inform you that it is the latter, and not Tradition. Early Church Tradition did not define papal primacy in the way it has been redefined in the Roman Church, so how can it be said that the RC is in keeping with Church Tradition? The great schism, between the Roman Church and the Orthodox sees, did happen for certain reasons that were more than just political: questions over authority being one of them.

Even Tradition can be and is interpreted differently by the ancient Churches at times, even though the teachings from Tradition are generally more consistent than not among them, even where isolation between Churches has occurred. In any case, when defending or supporting or defining various teachings, the RCC appeals to both Scripture and Tradition constantly. In the end though, the authority must be vested somehow in the Church, itself, for having that very purpose of receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the Gospel accurately.

 

[Tree of Life]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic Authority.

Because of this, the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their TRADITION. But that never satisfies the difference but instead merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities to choose their authority and their interpretive skills to understand what that authority teaches in order to determine what they will believe. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

After studying Catholic and Reformed theology extensively and after having many discussions with my Catholic brethren, I don't believe that there is a singular "root of the conflict". In any major dispute, whether it's between individuals or even entire societies, we're often inclined to try to find the singular root of the conflict, thinking that if we can only pull it up then everything else can more easily fall into place.

But conflicts are usually more complicated than that.

The real root of any conflict is sin. And this root won't be plucked up until Jesus returns. Until then we must learn how to live in a fallen world with a visibly divided church.

 

[Sola1517]

Jesus told us that His ministry was to divide, not to unite. Can two walk together unless they be agreed?

Ecumenism is a tool of the enemy to water down the truth of the Bible for the sake of unity that we no longer are following what Jesus taught but rather our own traditions and ideas.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

At the same time, 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 says all who preach the Gospel are united in Christ. We shouldn't look to be divisive.

 

[Basil the Great]

It is very sad to see all of the divisions within Christendom. Maybe the answer in the end is for Protestants, Catholics and Oriental Orthodox to all become Eastern Orthodox and make it one Church? Catholics can give up all of their dogmas proclaimed after the Great Schism and Protestants can then accept the traditions of the Early Church. If this miracle were to happen, I am sure that the Oriental Orthodox would join in as well and we could have one Christian Church. I guess as some people say....... "dream on"..

 

[PeaceB]

Catholics simply recognize that, no matter how one cuts it, the Protestant emperor has no clothes. Scripture produces disunity where its used as the sole source of authority. This is because, in actuality, the individual interpreter becomes his own authority, his own little pope if you will, even as he'd vehemently deny his infallibility in his interpretations.

But the Church received and proclaimed the gospel before a word of the new Testament was even written. And there can only be "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Even logically the necessity for a visible entity, established by God for the purpose of preserving, clarifying, and teaching the faith, having a continuously traceable historical link to the beginnings of Christianity, proves itself to be evident over time.

Agreed, except I would say “Satan produces disunity, where Scripture is used as the sole source of authority.”

It certainly seems that a lot of people have trouble putting themselves under the authority of someone else. We like to think that we are in charge of our own lives. Nobody likes to be told what to do.

So we have this system that allows us to interpret Scripture however we like, all the while feigning that we have Jesus as our authority while in reality we are our own pope, as you put it. You have Christians in this forum who will tell you that masturbation and pre-marital sex are not sins, and they can claim to be following Jesus just the same as every other Protestant, because at the end of the day each person has the right to interpret Scripture for himself and to decide for himself what Jesus allows and prohibits (although perhaps some denominations would not agree with this). If the elders at your church don’t go for it, you go to the church next door until you find one that agrees with you. Or you do as many people on this site do, stop going to church altogether and form your own little church of one on the internet, where your interpretation of Scripture is supreme and everyone else is wrong.

That is how it seems to me in many cases, but of course I cannot see into a persons heart. I could be wrong in my assessment, at least for some people.

 

[truefiction1]

Even Tradition can be and is interpreted differently by the ancient Churches at times, even though the teachings from Tradition are generally more consistent than not among them, even where isolation between Churches has occurred. In any case, when defending or supporting or defining various teachings, the RCC appeals to both Scripture and Tradition constantly. In the end though, the authority must be vested somehow in the Church, itself, for having that very purpose of receiving, preserving, and proclaiming the Gospel accurately.

Yes, the Church Herself is the authority. But where is the Church? Who is the Church? Roman Catholic definitions differ from the definitions of Orthodox Tradition, which are much older. Hence, the so-called schism exists. Most Protestants aren't even aware of Orthodox Tradition, nor can they understand that experience which God, by virtue of Providence, has not yet initiated them into.

Bottom line is that there is a difference between the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church which comes to us from the Apostles and what the Roman magisterium is talking about when it uses the term "Tradition".

 

[seeking.IAM]

I think animosity stems from many having an, "I'm right and you're wrong perspective" instead of, "We're all brothers and sisters in Christ" perspective. Until we change our focus to what we hold in common rather than how we are different, animosity will persist.

Jesus told us that His ministry was to divide, not to unite. Can two walk together unless they be agreed?

Ecumenism is a tool of the enemy to water down the truth of the Bible for the sake of unity that we no longer are following what Jesus taught but rather our own traditions and ideas...

Thank you for your response which pretty much emphasizes my point. Can we not all agree on the essentials that Jesus Christ is Lord and embrace each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, while being more charitable over our differences?

 

[Major1]

After studying Catholic and Reformed theology extensively and after having many discussions with my Catholic brethren, I don't believe that there is a singular "root of the conflict". In any major dispute, whether it's between individuals or even entire societies, we're often inclined to try to find the singular root of the conflict, thinking that if we can only pull it up then everything else can more easily fall into place.

But conflicts are usually more complicated than that.

The real root of any conflict is sin. And this root won't be plucked up until Jesus returns. Until then we must learn how to live in a fallen world with a visibly divided church.

Excellent answer!

 

[JacksBratt]

There is a lot of animosity from Protestants toward Catholics and the same from Catholic towards Protestant.

Most of what I see is arguments founded in the interpretation of scripture.

I have been involved in these arguments and for the most part see them as arguments, in a family, over who has the TV remote or who's turn it is to do the dishes...

We are all children of God.

In Christ's eyes.....He doesn't see Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Pentecostal......

He only sees those that believe in Him and His work on the cross, and those that do not believe.

Oh... and by the way... it's YOUR turn to do the dishes.. I did them last time......

 

[fhansen]

It is very sad to see all of the divisions within Christendom. Maybe the answer in the end is for Protestants, Catholics and Oriental Orthodox to all become Eastern Orthodox and make it one Church? Catholics can give up all of their dogmas proclaimed after the Great Schism and Protestants can then accept the traditions of the Early Church. If this miracle were to happen, I am sure that the Oriental Orthodox would join in as well and we could have one Christian Church. I guess as some people say....... "dream on"..

I have a general question, though. Should there be no more dogmas proclaimed by the Church after, say, the Great Schism or some alternative time for that matter?

 

[fhansen]

After studying Catholic and Reformed theology extensively and after having many discussions with my Catholic brethren, I don't believe that there is a singular "root of the conflict". In any major dispute, whether it's between individuals or even entire societies, we're often inclined to try to find the singular root of the conflict, thinking that if we can only pull it up then everything else can more easily fall into place.

But conflicts are usually more complicated than that.

The real root of any conflict is sin. And this root won't be plucked up until Jesus returns. Until then we must learn how to live in a fallen world with a visibly divided church.

There's truth here but isn't that also sort of saying that division should be not only predictable but acceptable? And who's to draw the line, then, to determine how much division is acceptable and how much isn't? Does God really want that? He provided no mechanism to address or prevent it, to prevent sin/error from permanently influencing Christian doctrine? I'm just presenting it this way to ask if other alternatives might not be a better fit.