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

[redleghunter]

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.

What did Christ and the NT writers use to establish truth claims?

 

[GingerBeer]

Are you Catholic?

No. That why I said "If I were" because I am not.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I would agree in the context of the Church fathers as well. There was unity in many things but also various differences. Even among their own personal writings.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Although not forgetting the warnings of Galatians 1

 

[redleghunter]

“Satan produces disunity, where Scripture is used as the sole source of authority.”

Who are you quoting? Jesus, Peter, John, Paul, Jude?

Frankly I think that quote comes from the pits of Perdition.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Brian, it's a good idea not to waste time on scary websites that deal in fictional conspiracies. As I mentioned awhile ago, there is one such that speaks of the dark doings of the "Illuminati"...and then invites you to send them your dues money, for which "they" will mail you your Illuminati membership card, and you, too, can be underway, secretly (?) taking over the world.

There is a lot of specific information on the Rosecrucian site that states what their beliefs and practices are and their doctrine. I waded through it and it was not a fancy buzz type of speculative mystery but very clear well written. I study history and you can see people making warnings over time that are about specific groups with specific aims. One such item would be the 45 goals of communism to turn America into a socialist country. This was published in a book and also read into the congressional record in the very early 50's/ This list at that time was just ideas and now 60 years later almost every specific goal on that list has been accomplished. This shows that agendas are planned out and action plans are taken.
I would gladly discuss the merits of this subject but you have dismissed the evidence before considering weather it was relevant. I watch the modern church embracing eastern mysticism and using the very same spiriitual practices outlined on the site i pointed out. In the epistles they were battling gnosticism then and this is what is entering the church. If you want to dismiss it you are welcome to but if you are on a jury you 1st have to consider the evidence. I would respect your opinnion much more if you had waded through some of the information and then presented a case as to why it was irrelevant or just sensational speculation.

 

[Linktogunner]

I beleive the bible to be the infallible rule of faith and doctrine for the christian, individually; and the church collectively. Earlier in the thread someone made mention (in defense of the catholic view on tradition) that it's dangerous for one person to have his own interpretation of scripture.. man, I'm here to tell you that if you pray with sincere desires to know God and read the dang word, God will reveal what is fundamental to salvation, and THAT IS ALL YOU NEED. Jesus is God incarnate, died for the sins of the world to save all who will put their trust in him and beleive in him and rose again and is seated at the right hand of the Father. The holy spirit is God, as is the Father, as is thw Son. One God. Worship him alone. Love people, etc. Very basic.

Read the bible.

 

[redleghunter]

Please post from Scriptures In the New Testament, the mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

If the early church was the Catholic church would not we all expect to see THOSE teaching somewhere in the writings of those who founded the early church????

One of the giants of Roman Catholic theology was Cardinal Newman. His response to the above would be the NT church was a mere acorn of what would become a fully grown tree. It was his Doctrinal Development which would, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, justify the list you provided.

When I explained doctrinal development to a Greek Orthodox friend, he cringed and it looked as if he broke out in hives.

Basically what Cardinal Newman taught was The Church in the here and now can determine truth not discovered in antiquity. He actually said that the Church standing on antiquity alone for tradition and doctrine was error.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

One of the giants of Roman Catholic theology was Cardinal Newman. His response to the above would be the NT church was a mere acorn of what would become a fully grown tree. It was his Doctrinal Development which would, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, justify the list you provided.

When I explained doctrinal development to a Greek Orthodox friend, he cringed and it looked as if he broke out in hives.

Basically what Cardinal Newman taught was The Church in the here and now can determine truth not discovered in antiquity. He actually said that the Church standing on antiquity alone for tradition and doctrine was err

Actually that verse supports the error of following another mans gospel and not Christ's. We have the teachings of Jesus for ourselves and need not be ashamed. If there was more to be given to us of Christ's core teachings, we would have received it through the gospels and the apostles only. The further you go out from that first hand experience, the more likey it is for error to creep in just as Jesus predicted it would.
Acts 20:29
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.



We can come together an reason together but unity cannot happen on just a few of the essential teachings.

In the end ,the only thing that matters is are we saved or not.Paul said that his Gospel ,if believed was the Gospel thAt saves ( 1Cor:15 ) The Bible says we are to follow Paul— AS HE FOLLOWS CHRIST. I’m going with Paul— as I was told.How about you?

 

[DominicBaptiste]

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.

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is. It almost sounds like you are trying to persuade Roman Catholics to adopt protestant forms of theology. In any case, it is possible to be Roman Catholic and still diverge greatly in practice from the teaching of the RCC, and most Roman Catholics don't follow all Catholic teaching. It almost sounds like you are trying to pick a fight. lol I don't particularly see anything wrong with Roman Catholic authority. If you don't like part of, you can still be Roman Catholic and just adapt as needed. The vast majority of Catholics don't even confess their sins to the priest, so if someone doesn't follow the authority of the church, it's probably normal. I'm from a baptist family background, and I have membership in the Methodist Church. I also get inspiration from the RCC. If I had been raised Catholic, I would probably just stay Catholic and deal with the parts I didn't like in a practical way.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm here to tell you that if you pray with sincere desires to know God and read the dang word, God will reveal what is fundamental to salvation, and THAT IS ALL YOU NEED.

See, the thing here is that what you've just expressed is that Christian truth is determined by a subjective personal revelation from God.

That's basically Muntzerism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

Why would you think your neighbor is confused?

Faith is not necessarily understood to be as a result of a completely autonomous, rational choice. We are what we are, hopefully, by the grace of God.

You seem to have Reformed proclivities so surely you understand this point?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would you think your neighbor is confused?

Speaking personally, I never intended or went out of my way to become Lutheran. Becoming a Lutheran was never a rational choice for me. It happened pretty much entirely by accident. But by the grace of God I am what I am, as the Apostle says.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

What became of the Jews who felt that way about the leadership of their church? Their house (church) was left unto them desolate. Jesus was very clear about the rebuke He gave to the Pharisees about teaching the doctrines of man.

You're talking about doctrine and I'm talking about an issue of sacramentalism. I trust ultimately in God, but I look for that guidance and formation through the ordinary means he has provided. I don't look to extraordinary means that presume upon his grace.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What became of the Jews who felt that way about the leadership of their church? Their house (church) was left unto them desolate. Jesus was very clear about the rebuke He gave to the Pharisees about teaching the doctrines of man.

Matthew 15:3
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I seem to recall the Lord told His followers to listen to the teaching of the Pharisees because they sit in Moses' seat. What He told them not to do was imitate their hypocrisy, "for they do not practice what they preach."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

Speaking personally, I never intended or went out of my way to become Lutheran. Becoming a Lutheran was never a rational choice for me. It happened pretty much entirely by accident. But by the grace of God I am what I am, as the Apostle says.

-CryptoLutheran

It was actually difficult for me to reconcile myself with the Lutheran church for a while, in terms of its history, and especially because I did not understand its view of sanctification, and my previous church experience did such a bang-up job of damaging my ability to have faith in general. But I stayed with it because I was convinced that it was the church God had lead me to.

 

[searcher24]

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.

This should be a basic, common-sense point to acknowledge by both sides before starting any intellectually honest conversation on this subject. Very well written.
Failing to acknowledge this is a symptom that the dialogue won't be honest, nor useful.

 

[truefiction1]

Correct...



That's where you veer off the inspired record... I can provide more than a couple of verses showing the Holy Spirit coming upon individuals, not institutions. The argument that the individual cannot receive teaching from the Holy Ghost without help from a corporate structure does not square with Bible teaching.... if you remember it was the corporate Jewish structure that summarily failed. Do you think God's going to try it the same way again and expect a different result? That's what the Holy Ghost was given to us for, to move Gods' people from a corporate, works based experience to an individual, Grace based experience. Remember, the law is now being written on our heart.... that's personal not corporate. Remember Jesus teaching us to pray and repent directly to the Father in His name only? That's personal not corporate.

The need of men to control men is our most primal sinful instinct... pride and power always corrupt. Show me a religious or political kingdom that ever survived.... then see the folly of believing another ecclesiastical corporate body, with a multitude of recorded transgressions against it, is to be trusted in anyway to convey the humble, meek mission of Christ from palaces adorned with gold? From an institution that purposefully withheld the written Word from it's adherents? Please don't respond with the adage that God has lead the corporate church for fear of sounding like the Pharisees.

I think the records in Heaven will bear Righteous judgement upon those that oppressed and killed in God's name. Come out of her that you receive not of her plagues.

All individuals are flawed, which is why individual interpretations cannot be infallible authorities. Infallibility is a characteristic of the whole Church across all of time and space. No single human person, except Christ, can be regarded as infallible.

 

[truefiction1]

All of that is a pretty tough sell when the Eastern Orthodox allowance of contraception and remarriage after divorce comes straight from the popular culture, and is completely inconsistent with Scripture and the ECF.

Then why is your current pope Francis asking his Catholic church to consider re-admitting divorcees who are remarried into Communion? It is because doing so is neither in violation of Scripture nor of the ECF's. Why does the pope now seek to reverse RC requirements of celibacy for the ordained priesthood, in keeping with Orthodox Tradition and the Bible?

My friend, as time wears on, Romanism is tougher to sell. Do you really believe that reasonable people buy the lie of "annulment" of a Sacramental union between a husband and wife? I don't. I've seen these "annulments". They are usually nothing more than priest sanctioned "divorces" under a deceptive name. Contraception by NFP, allowed by RC is not recommended in the Bible: abstinence is recommended only for prayer and fasting, not to prevent conception. It's obvious that the RC teachers are twisting St. Paul's message when they try to insert NFP in there, when Paul himself at no point had contraception in mind when he wrote about abstinence from intercourse in marriage.

All this aside, however, The Orthodox Church does not "allow" divorce, or contraception. She merely exercises pastoral "ikonomia" in such cases where the occurrence of these unfortunate things is deemed to be less prohibitive to the salvation of the effected parties than the alternative. Orthodoxy "celebrates" Matrimony and children, in keeping with Holy Tradition from the time of Adam and Eve, until our Lord returns. We mourn the destruction of marriage, and this culture of death that seeks to prevent the bringing of new life (conception of children) into Communion with the Holy Trinity. We have the "mind of Christ", because we Live by the light of the Holy Spirit. Therefor, we hate divorce, and we hate contraception, just as our Lord does.

 

[Goatee]

Catholic Bashing thread again!

I am out of here!