The Problem of Protestant Anti-Catholicism

[FaithT]

I think WELS is very similar to fundamentalist or evangelicals. LCMS is conservative, but a little more moderate than WELS. Correct me if I’m wrong.

ELCA has trans and homosexual ministers and is ok with abortion and same sex “marriage.” I know they are in full communion with the episcopal church.

Yes, the LCMS is conservative but I don’t know anything about WELS.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, the LCMS is conservative but I don’t know anything about WELS.

WELS is much more conservative. They won’t pray with anyone outside their synod, or let women read, or vote on pastoral issues.

 

[Wolseley]

 

[narnia59]

Here is the Baltimore Catechism:

167. What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation?”​

When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.​

See, for example, Cantate Domino of the Council of Florence.

The Baltimore catechism is not to the level of a magisterial teaching document as it was produced by a limited group of bishops in one country, not the universal church. Nonetheless, well before it was written the concept of invincible ignorance was in the language and heart of the Church, St. Paul even takes that stand in Sacred Scripture.

Council of Florence:

What's the Correct Understanding of "No Salvation outside the Church?"

Florence’s decree that no one outside the Catholic Church is saved is absolutely true in the sense that those who lack any and all connection to the Churc...

www.catholic.com

 

[zippy2006]

The Baltimore catechism is not to the level of a magisterial teaching document as it was produced by a limited group of bishops in one country, not the universal church.

No one said it was. You said, "And it clearly has never been the teaching of the Catholic church that only Catholics would go to heaven," and, "I didn't see how anyone could believe that." It's pretty obvious that such claims are at best highly tendentious.

Edit: For example, that you refuse the Baltimore Catechism as a legitimate Catholic source and then proffer Catholic Answers is just bizarre. If the Baltimore Catechism does not possess authority, then Catholic Answers doesn't possess even an aura or inkling of authority. Such is just cherry picking.

 

[narnia59]

No one said it was. You said, "And it clearly has never been the teaching of the Catholic church that only Catholics would go to heaven," and, "I didn't see how anyone could believe that." It's pretty obvious that such claims are at best highly tendentious.

Edit: For example, that you refuse the Baltimore Catechism as a legitimate Catholic source and then proffer Catholic Answers is just bizarre. If the Baltimore Catechism does not possess authority, then Catholic Answers doesn't possess even an aura or inkling of authority. Such is just cherry picking.

Catholic Answers addresses your post about the intent of the Council of Florence. Totally agree they are not authoritative as well. But they can throw their two cents in as well as anyone else about intent.

The concept of invincible ignorance goes back to Scripture and St. Paul. Every document ever written by the Church does not need to include a deliberate reference to the knowledge that those who are not part of the visible church due to invincible ignorance may also be saved. The concept has been present since the beginning and is referenced in enough church documents before Vatican II that no one should proclaim that Church at any point taught that if you were not part of the visible church you automatically end up in hell.

 

[zippy2006]

Nonetheless, well before it was written the concept of invincible ignorance was in the language and heart of the Church, St. Paul even takes that stand in Sacred Scripture.

Where do you think St. Paul does that?

 

[narnia59]

Where do you think St. Paul does that?

Words of St. Paul:

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)

"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16)

"though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him, but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 1:13-14)

And in the words of Christ -- "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin (John 15:22)

 

[zippy2006]

"...now he commands all men everywhere to repent"

This cuts against your point and belies the objectivity of the Incarnation.

"They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts"

This too cuts against your point. It favors the idea that ignorance is not possible because the law is written on the heart.

"though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him, but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 1:13-14)

This is more on point, but the way you want it to anachronistically reflect a kind of doctrine of invincible ignorance isn't really right. The principle that someone who does not know a law cannot be faulted for acting against it is not in question. The question is whether a given law has in fact been propagated. As the first two quotes you give show, it has been propagated. Thus we might say that excusing ignorance can occur in a relative way, but not in an absolute way.

 

[narnia59]

This cuts against your point and belies the objectivity of the Incarnation.


This too cuts against your point. It favors the idea that ignorance is not possible because the law is written on the heart.


This is more on point, but the way you want it to anachronistically reflect a kind of doctrine of invincible ignorance isn't really right. The principle that someone who does not know a law cannot be faulted for acting against it is not in question. The question is whether a given law has in fact been propagated. As the first two quotes you give show, it has been propagated. Thus we might say that excusing ignorance can occur in a relative way, but not in an absolute way.

From “On Promotion of False Doctrines”, papal encyclical by Pope Pius IX in 1863

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.


Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870): "It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God."

And from an interesting article from someone who actually did the research:

"When I first contemplated entering the Church, I was encouraged by a former seminary professor to read the book Revolution in Rome by Protestant theologian David Wells. Wells begins his book by noting that the Catholic Church traditionally has been considered the “Church that never changes,” at least in doctrine. But, according to him, the Church did change her doctrine at Vatican II. One of the examples he cites is the Council’s teaching on the possibility of salvation for those who are not in visible communion with the Church. In this Wells claimed that the bishops introduced a brand-new doctrine into the Church.

It seemed to me that the easiest way to test Wells’ claim was to go back and read orthodox Catholic theologians who wrote prior to the Council to see what they said about this matter. I accessed Ludwig Ott, Cardinal Gibbons, Newman, and then went back further to Francis de Sales and Thomas Aquinas. All of them matter-of-factly affirmed exactly what the Second Vatican Council affirmed, that those who, through invincible ignorance, do not know the Catholic Church to be the one true Church can still be saved if they live fully in light of the truth they possess.

As I pondered it a bit more, I realized that there were numerous ancient witnesses to this truth as well: Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, Pope Stephen in his squabble with Cyprian over the rebaptism of heretics, Justin Martyr’s view that the ancient Greek philosophers were enlightened by grace. (An excellent source for ancient Christian testimony on this point is Fr. William Most’s book Catholic Apologetics Today. )

Couple all of this with the fact that the Bible says the same thing (Acts 10:34-35, Rom. 2:26-29) and it became quite clear to me that, far from being innovative, the Second Vatican Council had affirmed something that had always been part of authentic Catholic teaching."

In the Boondocks of the Kingdom

In the Boondocks of the Kingdom When I first contemplated entering the Church, I was encouraged by a former seminary professor to read the book Revolution in Ro...

www.catholic.com

 

[zippy2006]

@narnia59 - I'm tired of answering posts with no words of your own. If you want to make an argument, make it. Posts with nothing more than quotes are not real engagement.

Edit:

And from an interesting article from someone who actually did the research...

Who in the world is David Palm? If you want to read someone who has actually done the research, read Jacques Dupuis, one of the foremost scholars on this cluster of issues. The fact of the matter is that Vatican II's position was a development. The only real discussion to be had asks how much of a development. To say that it was not a development is to rewrite history.

 

[AJHnh]

I could never be Protestant. It just makes no sense to me.

What doesn't make sense?

 

[AJHnh]

I was a Catholic until 2021. Admittedly, a on and off again like many. I began looking in earnest for a church again at age 61. The issue i have always had with the Catholic Church ( does not mean all, but the local ones) was they simply did not seem to know the people in the congregation. My last exp was at a funeral and the priest just did not seem to know at all about the family despite them being there weekly for years. It was an odd situation and may have been an "off day".

I found a Lutheran LCMS church with Pastors that immediately made me feel welcome. I met with the associate Pastor to talk about my interest and he couldn't have been more gracious. I eventually joined and have been a member since. The only thing i can say comfortably is the LCMS is a very Biblical Church and the doctrine it has seems very easy to trace back to the bible. In my circle of friend and relatives the majority are Catholic but outside of Sunday they know really nothing of the hierarchy or how it is organized. By that i mean what is a teaching traceable to the Bible or to the church, often two different things.

I don't see any anti Catholic sentiment in my church at all. However there is much in the Catholic Church that makes me wonder "how did you get that, from this verse in the bible". Just my thoughts...peace

 

[RileyG]

What doesn't make sense?

Too many divisions all based on scripture alone. It’s all based on the pastor’s private interpretation.

 

[RileyG]

I was a Catholic until 2021. Admittedly, a on and off again like many. I began looking in earnest for a church again at age 61. The issue i have always had with the Catholic Church ( does not mean all, but the local ones) was they simply did not seem to know the people in the congregation. My last exp was at a funeral and the priest just did not seem to know at all about the family despite them being there weekly for years. It was an odd situation and may have been an "off day".

I found a Lutheran LCMS church with Pastors that immediately made me feel welcome. I met with the associate Pastor to talk about my interest and he couldn't have been more gracious. I eventually joined and have been a member since. The only thing i can say comfortably is the LCMS is a very Biblical Church and the doctrine it has seems very easy to trace back to the bible. In my circle of friend and relatives the majority are Catholic but outside of Sunday they know really nothing of the hierarchy or how it is organized. By that i mean what is a teaching traceable to the Bible or to the church, often two different things.

I don't see any anti Catholic sentiment in my church at all. However there is much in the Catholic Church that makes me wonder "how did you get that, from this verse in the bible". Just my thoughts...peace

Unfortunately, many Catholics are poorly catechized and don’t know what the Church teaches. You’re right there.

Peace and blessings

 

[Michie]

Unfortunately, many Catholics are poorly catechized and don’t know what the Church teaches. You’re right there.

Peace and blessings

That’s for sure!

 

[VolRaider]

My rule of thumb - if you want to know about what Catholics beiieve, ask a Catholic.

 

[Michie]

My rule of thumb - if you want to know about what Catholics beiieve, ask a Catholic.

A knowledgeable one preferrably.

 

[RileyG]

A knowledgeable one preferrably.

Amen

 

[Markie Boy]

I went to a talk at my old Baptist church they were giving on Catholicism. I ended up writing them a letter and had several back and forth emails, defending actual Catholic teaching - as the Catholic "expert" they had for the talk was no expert. He made some things out worse than they are, and others I don't know how to fairly judge - if they were lies for convenience or stuff he really believed.

While in the Catholic Church I saw the same - some Catholics looking down on protestants like there was something defective about them.

Here is the odd observation - the main divisions seem to be what to do at a liturgy or church gathering.

Outside that - I have seen conservative Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, and Non-Denom's all rally together multiple times in our town against them trying to bring pro LGBTQ books into our children's section in the library. They also are the ones that rally together for Pro-Life functions and keeping God in our School and community.

When it comes to what marriage is, or when life begins, or not being drunk every weekend, or even swearing a lot - I see more unity among the conservatives from each denomination, than I do within any one denomination.

United on how to live and morality - divided on what to do on Sunday.