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

[PeaceByJesus]

The thing is, redleghunter, If someone who witnessed Pope Francis or some other RC bishop performing some miracle (alleged to be by the power of the Holy Spirit) testified of this miracle to you, would you believe their testimony?

EO: Only if this was somehow an affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of his Roman papacy or distinctive RC doctrines, which we know from Tradition are not from Tradition, though Rome declares they are.

Bible Christian: Only if this was somehow an affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of his Roman papacy or distinctive RC doctrines, which we know from Scripture are not from thence, though Rome declares they need not be.

 

[Vicomte13]

Off in Protestant land we are now faced with two One True Churches.

Three. The Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics, and they broke off - or were put out by (depending on whom you ask) - the rest in the mid-400s AD.

 

[redleghunter]

They keep propping up because of the fear that the Catholics have it right. Nobody bothers to bash the various other little splinters of Christianity, because they aren't really afraid of them. Everybody already knows that those others are wrong, so why bother.

Which One True Catholic church are we discussing? Roman or Eastern Orthodox? Each claims the title and denies its exclusive use to the other.

 

[redleghunter]

Darth Bergoglio

Now you have peaked the interest of another Catholic sect, the SSPX. I'll add that to the list.

 

[Vicomte13]

Which One True Catholic church are we discussing? Roman or Eastern Orthodox? Each claims the title and denies its exclusive use to the other.

You left out the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am often fascinated by what amounts to the following:

"Catholics are bad because they teach salvation by works. Now the actual requirement for salvation is that you have to recite this prayer, come forward to this altar up front, believe X, Y, and Z and have this personal experience that you can testify to later in order to prove that you are saved."

What is most fascinating is the total lack of irony.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Major1]

Hi, Major 1, it has been a while. As I understand one of the MAJOR differences of the two is that Protestants believe in direct, Divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit and/or the fact that God's Word/The Holy Scripture is "God breathed" and "living and active." This is the major reason, I believe, that the Protestant fore fathers, Luther and Calvin and others (who were considered heretics by the RCC), were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and even killed by the Catholic regime during the Inquisitions (see: What were the Inquisitions?) During one of the four (second:Spanish Inquisition 1478>(over 31,900 killed)) Inquisitions over 2,000 "heretics" were burned at the stake (in less than a decade) These "heretics" were not only being divisive but I think much more importantly they preached a message which threatened the authority (and wealth) of the RCC which had "gotten in bed" with the Emperors of Rome (4th century.) Their influence over the conquered peoples (in effect, the world) of Rome (Roman Empire) enabled the RCC to form a collusion with Rome which was a VERY beneficial symbiotic (and horribly evil in many ways) relationship for both parties: hence, the "separation of church and state" (not: of personal religious convictions and state) in our Constitution. One of the many RCC's benefits was a heretic now became an enemy of the State and the maximum punishment now shifted from excommunication to death and the RCC was given virtually free reigns on how to conduct their Inquisitions. Sorry, for that large bit of info/joy ride.

Anyway, because we "heretics/protestors" believe in direct, Divine inspiration with individual responsibility and accountability and not the Catholic way of always going through what we regard as a worldly religious system based upon the worldly influence and power gained by the collusion described above, like you said, we will rarely (not, never) ever be able to influence a devout Roman Catholic. But we must NEVER< NEVER< NEVER forget that our Protestant forefathers/founders WERE Roman Catholics in high places who, after much study of the Holy Scriptures realized and actualized the Scriptural foundations for direct, Divine individual inspiration. I believe that Roman Catholics, through their fundamental belief in Jesus the Christ and what He did for them, ARE Christian but due to many hurdles thrown in their way they have been crippled (but not totally prevented) from realizing that they are endowed individually with the Holy Spirit and open and free for direct, Divine individual inspiration with individual responsibility and accountability.

Direct, Divine individual inspiration need not always or ever be determined by puny human nature or reason. The Holy Scriptures tells us several times that all Christians are endowed with the Holy Spirit Who can also guide us if we acknowledge and submit to Him.

Hello! I hope that you are well!!! Yes it has been a long time and I have always appreciated your thoughts and comments.

I have no reason to disagree with your comments. From what you are saying it seems to me that you are saying the same thing I am saying and it comes down to who they say the "Authority" is.

 

[truefiction1]

EO: Only if this was somehow an affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of his Roman papacy or distinctive RC doctrines, which we know from Tradition are not from Tradition, though Rome declares they are.

Bible Christian: Only if this was somehow an affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of his Roman papacy or distinctive RC doctrines, which we know from Scripture are not from thence, though Rome declares they need not be.

Fair enough then. So I'll ask another question of you, Bible Christian: Since we know that the asking of prayers of saints in heaven, and the veneration of Eastern Orthodox icons is not a practice taught in Scripture, (according to you) would you believe the testimony of a Christian who witnessed a miraculous healing of a person form a medically incurable disease after myrrh that miraculously streams from the surface of a particular icon of the virgin Mary and infant Jesus was dripped upon the sick persons' head, whilst the priests asked Mary to pray for God to heal them?

In this case, the healing by saving faith is clearly linked to the intercessions of Mary, and to the veneration of a myrrh streaming icon of her. Does God grant healing to those who place their faith in intercessory prayers by dead saints and holy oil dripping from icons which they humbly bow or prostrate before and kiss with their lips? What say ye?

 

[redleghunter]

Three. The Oriental Orthodox are not in communion with Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics, and they broke off - or were put out by (depending on whom you ask) - the rest in the mid-400s AD.

You are correct.

So Joe Sixpack comes to a spiritual cross roads in his life. He sees three churches on the horizon, one Roman Catholic, one Eastern Orthodox and one Oriental Orthodox. He wants to join the One True Church. All claim to be that One True Church. Where does he start stepping out to.

Not a direct question to you but for all to consider.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I am an Evangelical in the Church of England and my mother-in-law who is from Colombia is a devout Catholic. I have known her for 20 years now but I have only been a Christian for the last 8 years.

The main discussion that we have about the differences of what we each believe always comes back to what we think about Mary and her centrality in each of our individual faith, which of course is just as far as we live from each other

And the Eucharist. It seems that if an RC professes those two things all else can be overlooked, no matter how liberal.

 

[redleghunter]

EO: Only if this was somehow an affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of his Roman papacy or distinctive RC doctrines, which we know from Tradition are not from Tradition, though Rome declares they are.

Bible Christian: Only if this was somehow an affirmation of saving faith and not used as an affirmation of his Roman papacy or distinctive RC doctrines, which we know from Scripture are not from thence, though Rome declares they need not be.

Well presented. Miracles in the NT were always an affirmation of the message preached. In most cases it was to show the Gospel message came with Power.

 

[truefiction1]

We can now look at said quoted passage:

1 Corinthians 2 New King James Version (NKJV)

2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Three points.

1. How did you come about to use verse #4 in your argument? Holy Scriptures as presented above or a Patriarch who quoted the Holy Scriptures the Holy Spirit provided through St Paul?

2. Do you not see your own appeal to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures to further your argument?

3. The last point is, we have St Paul not merely leaving such truth to pass down orally but he actually penned those words in which you use.

I understand all this. What you don't seem to understand is that my point is, that it is not the Word alone that communicated Truth to the faithful, but the Word Who is being revealed by the Holy Spirit in the heart of a son or daughter of God the Father. Those hear whom I am pointing this out to are dismissing the role of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of each child of God, and are denying that the Holy Spirit is present in the Orthodox Church and is the Author of the expressions of the Church's faith.

 

[Vicomte13]

Which One True Catholic church are we discussing? Roman or Eastern Orthodox? Each claims the title and denies its exclusive use to the other.

Well, the way I see it is this:
I know God exists because of personal revelation and miracles.

Before those, I thought God existed as natural law because I put together the science of my education with the "itch" in my mind for God, which I had because of the seal of infant baptism.

I know that the Catholic God - the Roman Catholic one - is God because of the other miracles: Shroud plus Lanciano plus Incorrupt plus Lourdes apparition and healings put four elements together:

Christianity - the Shroud proves the resurrection.
Transubstantiation - proven by the eucharist.
The communion of and specificity of saints - proven by the Incorrupt.
God's use of Mary as emissary, and God's approval of her veneration - Lourdes and its miracles, also the conversion of the Americas thanks to Our Lady of Guadelupe.

There's at least one thing on that list that is offensive to every other version of Christianity, but not to God, given that he presented the miracles just like that.

God having proven Catholicism to me, it's just a matter of learning Catholicism - which can be learned in its fullest exposition in the Catechism.

Jesus pointed back at the Old Testament, which is why that document is important, and the catechism relies heavily (though not completely) on both testaments as the reasoning for what it says.

 

[Major1]

Much as I am not a fan of papal infallibility, I do recognize there is a certain integrity to the way Catholics do things that is not found in other Christian traditions, necessarily.

The Baptists (the largest non-Catholic religion in the US) have nothing to lose, no skin in the big game of history. All they rally around is detesting infant baptism and sacramentalism. Everything else about their faith is up for theological debate. They have no sense of history or identity beyond a book they have no explanation for (I guess Jesus just handed Peter a copy of the KJV and said "Feed my sheep."). They feel no social obligation to shepherd hundreds of millions of souls over thousands of years, across changing times and circumstances. After all, the Baptist view of the Church is just for the "true believer" that has separated themselves from "the world" and chosen to be baptized as a symbol of that separation, so the folks that don't easily fit into the theological fad of the day can simply be discounted.

Evangelicals in the US aren't really much different in that respect, and are basically cut from the same cloth.

I do not have a dog in the hunt as such but from what I am reading from you, you really do not know or understand a whole lot about the Baptist faith.

I would recommend to you any web site that says...."Reformed Baptist".

I have made a point over the years to know some things about religions and denominations. The bottom line facts are that every single so called Christian denomination has what "WE" as individuals think is wrong.

The only thing that matters IMO is what God has said in His written Word.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well presented. Miracles in the NT were always an affirmation of the message preached. In most cases it was to show the Gospel message came with Power.

Was Jesus preaching when he healed the centurion's servant, or simply going about the business of the Kingdom?

 

[redleghunter]

I am often fascinated by what amounts to the following:

"Catholics are bad because they teach salvation by works. Now the actual requirement for salvation is that you have to recite this prayer, come forward to this altar up front, believe X, Y, and Z and have this personal experience that you can testify to later in order to prove that you are saved."

What is most fascinating is the total lack of irony.

-CryptoLutheran

Assertions usually end up like that. Which poster advocated reciting a 'canned' prayer was a requirement of salvation?

But don't get me wrong. There are some powerful 'sinners prayers' in the Bible. However, it was not mere recitation on a card of some sort but the outpouring of a manifestly repentant heart seeking God for His salvation. This comes to mind:

Psalms 51, New American Standard Bible (NASB) | Chapter 51 | The Bible App | Bible.com

Now on your point about 'personal experience'....What drew souls to the water in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost? What was the 'personal experience' of the souls who heard the Gospel preached by Peter in Acts 10?

 

[Major1]

This is not an accurate description of the Protestant view. Sola Scriptura does not deny the role of other authorities in the Christian's life. Sola Scriptura defines scripture to be the sole infallible rule of faith. Sola Scriptura does not deny the teachings of those who have gone before us (i.e. the early church fathers) or the role of the church. But all of those things outside the Bible must come into submission to the Bible. Protestantism does not promote "you and your Bible underneath a tree and that's all you need", so it is not merely your own "private interpretation". It is the revelation of the Holy Spirit through the pages of scripture, and the church (not the Roman Catholic church) when the church submits to the ultimate authority of the Bible.

I agree with you and I thought that, that is pretty much what I articulated. I guess not so well.

I will try to do better.

 

[Vicomte13]

You are correct.

So Joe Sixpack comes to a spiritual cross roads in his life. He sees three churches on the horizon, one Roman Catholic, one Eastern Orthodox and one Oriental Orthodox. He wants to join the One True Church. All claim to be that One True Church. Where does he start stepping out to.

Not a direct question to you but for all to consider.

The very best answer is that Joe Sixpack, who doesn't have an answer to anything, should go sit with the Quakers for awhile and talk directly to the Holy Spirit in silence, guided by the Quakers' simple but effective rules.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus directed people to YHWH'S KINGDOM, as also all of YHWH'S WORD does, OT and NT.
The "why-is-there-so-much-animosity.?" title question is because men added to or took away from YHWH'S Word,
thus causing both curses and false teachings when this happened and when this continued. YHWH takes away men's portion in life when they take away from His Word (His Word Says),
and YHWH adds all the curses of Scripture to those men who add to His Word, as His Word Clearly Says.

 

[FireDragon76]

The very best answer is that Joe Sixpack, who doesn't have an answer to anything, should go sit with the Quakers for awhile and talk directly to the Holy Spirit in silence, guided by the Quakers' simple but effective rules.

Most of those kinds of Quakers are not even Christian anymore and regard discussion of Jesus as divisive.