Catholic vs Evangelical/Protestant POV - discussion

[BobRyan]

In this video Charlie Kirk and Michael Knowles compare various views/differences between Catholicism and Protestant/Evangelical teaching

At one point it appears that (Evangelical/Protestant) Charlie Kirk argues that doctrine should not matter and then Michael (Catholic) tends to argue that it does matter. I agree with Michael on that one.

But then they skirt around their differences on transubstantiation - body and bread at the Communion table.

When Charlie indicates that he believes these are symbols of Christ's body and not actual flesh and blood -- I think that there is a context in which both Catholics and Evangelical/Protestants agree 100%.

Both say that when Protestants/Evangelicals celebrate the Lord's Supper - in fact the bread and the grape juice remain -- bread and grape juice. Absolutely no Transubstantiation occurs. In fact Catholic documents say that if one takes an electron microscope and analyze the bread - it is still bread... going all the way down to carbon atom based molecular structure.

Where they differ - is the Catholic claim that Holy Orders convey some "mark of the soul" on the priest that enables them to have the powers to confect what some Catholic authors call "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ in a way that the electron microscope cannot detect.

And both Protestants and Catholics agree that the non-Catholic groups claim no such "marking of the soul" for pastors/priests such that they can in any way confect "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ .

========================

Just one example of their differences

===================

Another observation - they have a difficult time comparing notes - without an appeal to "Common ground".

One such common ground is "scripture" - they both agree that 66 books are inspired scripture, but the Catholic view would be that so also are 11 more books.

As Kirk points out - those 11 added books are not NT Christian age books - they are OT Jewish books and the Jews themselves do not consider them to be inspired texts though they do think they are important to read and know about.

 

[Joseph G]

In this video Charlie Kirk and Michael Knowles compare various views/differences between Catholicism and Protestant/Evangelical teaching

At one point it appears that (Evangelical/Protestant) Charlie Kirk argues that doctrine should not matter and then Michael (Catholic) tends to argue that it does matter. I agree with Michael on that one.

But then they skirt around their differences on transubstantiation - body and bread at the Communion table.

When Charlie indicates that he believes these are symbols of Christ's body and not actual flesh and blood -- I think that there is a context in which both Catholics and Evangelical/Protestants agree 100%.

Both say that when Protestants/Evangelicals celebrate the Lord's Supper - in fact the bread and the grape juice remain -- bread and grape juice. Absolutely no Transubstantiation occurs. In fact Catholic documents say that if one takes an electron microscope and analyze the bread - it is still bread... going all the way down to carbon atom based molecular structure.

Where they differ - is the Catholic claim that Holy Orders convey some "mark of the soul" on the priest that enables them to have the powers to confect what some Catholic authors call "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ in a way that the electron microscope cannot detect.

And both Protestants and Catholics agree that the non-Catholic groups claim no such "marking of the soul" for pastors/priests such that they can in any way confect "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ .

========================

Just one example of their differences

===================

Another observation - they have a difficult time comparing notes - without an appeal to "Common ground".

One such common ground is "scripture" - they both agree that 66 books are inspired scripture, but the Catholic view would be that so also are 11 more books.

As Kirk points out - those 11 added books are not NT Christian age books - they are OT Jewish books and the Jews themselves do not consider them to be inspired texts though they do think they are important to read and know about.

Too bad you can't post this in the Catholic sub-forum. Kinda speaks volumes, doesn't it? One has to question a faith unwilling to defend its doctrines on their own turf.

Just an observation...

biblegateway.com

 

[jas3]

Too bad you can't post this in the Catholic sub-forum. Kinda speaks volumes, doesn't it? One has to question a faith unwilling to defend its doctrines on their own turf.

No, the whole point of the congregational subforums is to be a place for people with common beliefs to discuss things without being interrupted by people arguing against those beliefs. To my knowledge St. Justin Martyr's Corner in The Ancient Way is the only place in a congregational forum where debate is allowed.

This is why I find it annoying when people post articles like "here's why we're right" and "here's why those people are wrong" in the congregational forums. These articles' claims can't be debated there.

 

[jas3]

At one point it appears that (Evangelical/Protestant) Charlie Kirk argues that doctrine should not matter and then Michael (Catholic) tends to argue that it does matter. I agree with Michael on that one.

Right, Kirk is consistently focused on what the bare minimum is that he needs to be considered a Christian. That to me seems completely wrongheaded.

As Kirk points out - those 11 added books are not NT Christian age books - they are OT Jewish books and the Jews themselves do not consider them to be inspired texts though they do think they are important to read and know about.

And as Knowles points out, modern rabbinical Judaism is radically different from Judaism in the time of the Second Temple, so rabbinical Jews' opinion on the deuterocanon is irrelevant. These writings were part of the Septuagint and were undisputed among early Christians.

The one point where I thought Kirk was stronger was in his criticism of Pope Francis. Knowles' response that you just have to be selective in what you listen to was utterly unconvincing, but that seems to be exactly what Catholics have done with Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans. I don't remember if this interview was before Fiducia because Knowles keeps repeating the "God can't bless sin" line, which was from an earlier document and which reportedly got the man who authored that line reassigned to a much less prestigious position.

 

[BobRyan]

And as Knowles points out, modern rabbinical Judaism is radically different from Judaism in the time of the Second Temple, so rabbinical Jews' opinion on the deuterocanon is irrelevant. These writings were part of the Septuagint and were undisputed among early Christians.

Josephus - a first century Jewish scholar also affirms that the basic Hebrew Bible (equivalent to our 39 books in OT) was unchanged fully canonized, and preserved in the Temple, by the time of the first century with no changes at all to it for over 300 years.

That clearly singles out the Hebrew Bible's Masoretic text rather than the Greek Septuagint. It eliminates Apocryphal texts written in that gap period - and demonstrates that this is not a feature of 'modern rabbinical Judaism" but was already decided in the first century.

It means that the Jews today and the Jews of the first century had the same idea of a canonized set of books -- preserved in the Temple. This is the 39 books of the OT that both Protestant and Catholic Bibles have today. It is the other books that are in dispute not what we have as the 39.

"The oldest surviving list of the cannonical scriptures of the OT comes from about A.D. 170, the product of a Christian scholar named Melito of Sardis, who made a trip to Palestine to determine both the order and number of books in the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic text - our 39 content)"

The disputed books include those disputed at the time when the Orthodox and the Catholic churches separated.

 

[BobRyan]

... that seems to be exactly what Catholics have done with Amoris Laetitia and Fiducia Supplicans. I don't remember if this interview was before Fiducia because Knowles keeps repeating the "God can't bless sin" line, which was from an earlier document and which reportedly got the man who authored that line reassigned to a much less prestigious position.

I think the interview was either 2023 or early 2024. In any case Knowles does not seem to be aware of Francis' statements affirming/blessing same sex unions.

 

[Joseph G]

No, the whole point of the congregational subforums is to be a place for people with common beliefs to discuss things without being interrupted by people arguing against those beliefs. To my knowledge St. Justin Martyr's Corner in The Ancient Way is the only place in a congregational forum where debate is allowed.

This is why I find it annoying when people post articles like "here's why we're right" and "here's why those people are wrong" in the congregational forums. These articles' claims can't be debated there.

Yep, I'm sure there were claimants of safe spaces at the Areopagus who covered their ears when Paul preached as well.

 

[jas3]

Josephus - a first century Jewish scholar also affirms that the basic Hebrew Bible (equivalent to our 39 books in OT) was unchanged fully canonized, and preserved in the Temple, by the time of the first century with no changes at all to it for over 300 years.

I'm not aware of anywhere where Josephus says the writings were "preserved in the Temple," or where his 22 books are enumerated as the same 39 Protestants consider inspired.

That clearly singles out the Hebrew Bible's Masoretic text rather than the Greek Septuagint.

He quotes from passages that are only in the Septuagint such as 1 Esdras and the Greek portions of Esther. It's likely that he was referencing the Septuagint rather than Hebrew texts for his own canon.

It eliminates Apocryphal texts written in that gap period

Only if you make a literal interpretation of Josephus's rhetoric your only source of information on the subject. We know he was wrong - if interpreted literally - about the immutability of the extant texts; he claims that nobody has added, removed, or altered a syllable since they were written, but there were many textual variants at his time. It seems more logical that Josephus, aware that what he was saying was not literally true, still employed exaggeration as a rhetorical device, as was common in antiquity. But if he is nevertheless interpreted literally, then that just results in reading him as an unreliable historian, not a slam-dunk witness against the early Christians, who accepted these texts.

"The oldest surviving list of the cannonical scriptures of the OT comes from about A.D. 170, the product of a Christian scholar named Melito of Sardis, who made a trip to Palestine to determine both the order and number of books in the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic text - our 39 content)"

Neither the number nor the order match the MT.

 

[JSRG]

Too bad you can't post this in the Catholic sub-forum. Kinda speaks volumes, doesn't it? One has to question a faith unwilling to defend its doctrines on their own turf.

Just an observation...

biblegateway.com

As far as I am aware, all of the congregation subforums (Lutheran, Pentecostalism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) have that kind of rule for their specific groups.

All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

That appears to be listed for every single one. Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, and all the rest. It doesn't make any sense to try to single out Catholicism for that.

 

[Joseph G]

As far as I am aware, all of the congregation subforums (Lutheran, Pentecostalism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) have that kind of rule for their specific groups.

All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

That appears to be listed for every single one. Pentecostal, Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, and all the rest. It doesn't make any sense to try to single out Catholicism for that.

Fair enough. I didn't realize other congregational subforums were as insecure about the tenets and practices of their faith - so as to desire such strigent protections from challenges to same.

Most Christians here and in the 3D world - who testify often about a *personal relationship with Christ through His Spirit* - harbor no such fears. There is no need, considering the promises of God about said Spirit and the power of prayer...

Ephesians 6:18-20 NIV

"And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people. Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should."

God bless us all who do, and shall, genuinely believe.

biblegateway.com

 

[Bob Crowley]

Where they differ - is the Catholic claim that Holy Orders convey some "mark of the soul" on the priest that enables them to have the powers to confect what some Catholic authors call "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ in a way that the electron microscope cannot detect.

There is no "mark of the soul" on the priest. What happens during the Eucharist is that the priest calls down or invokes the Holy Spirit to descend upon the host and wine, and make them holy ie. become the body and blood of Christ. Up to that time they're just wafers and wine.

Apparently the technical term is "epiclesis" and was the subject of a question in "The Catholic Leader" a couple of years ago. The Leader is our local Catholic rag in Queensland, Australia.

https://catholicleader.com.au/features/question-time-analysis/qa-what-is-an-epiclesis/

Question Time by Fr John Flader

Question: I occasionally hear the word “epiclesis” when people are talking about the liturgy. What exactly is this?

Answer: The word “epiclesis” is Greek and it means literally “to call down upon”.

It refers in the liturgy to calling upon God, and in particular the Holy Spirit, to come down upon a person or a thing to consecrate or bless it.

​

The Catechism, in the section on the Holy Spirit in the liturgy, says of it: “The Epiclesis (“invocation upon”) is the intercession in which the priest begs the Father to send the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, so that the offerings may become the body and blood of Christ and that the faithful, by receiving them, may themselves become a living offering to God” (CCC 1105).

The gesture the priest uses in the epiclesis consists in holding his hands, palms down, over a person or thing, while invoking God or the Holy Spirit to come down.

Thus, whenever the priest uses this gesture he is, at least in the broad sense, doing an exegesis.

He does this, for example, in the blessing of the water for Baptism, in the solemn blessing at the end of Mass and in the nuptial blessing in a wedding.

There is also an epiclesis in such sacraments as Confirmation and Holy Orders, as well as in the sacrament of Penance, and in many common blessings.

The principal epiclesis is that in the Mass which, in the Latin rite, comes just before the Consecration.

Occasionally there is a miraculous reminder pointing to the fact that the host is more than just bread, once it has been consecrated. The following link gives ten examples. I've put in one of the modern cases below..

https://www.catholicworldmission.org/post/10-amazing-eucharistic-miracles#:~:text=The%20Miracle%20of%20Bolsena%2DOrvieto,onto%20the%20altar's%20liturgical%20cloth.

Tixtla, Mexico (2006)​

During a retreat Mass at the Parish of St. Martin of Tours, a consecrated host began secreting a red substance. The diocese immediately contracted a study to determine its origin and cause.

Microscopic analysis shows that the reddish liquid was secreting from within the host. After testing the liquid, it was determined to be blood of the AB group. As late as 2010, analyses showed that fresh blood continued to secrete from within the host long after the initial observation.

 

[jas3]

There is no "mark of the soul" on the priest.

I'm a little confused by this statement. "Mark on the soul" is a term frequently employed to describe the effect of Holy Orders; for example:

"The principal effect of the sacrament [of ordination] is the character, a spiritual and indelible mark impressed upon the soul, by which the recipient is distinguished from others, designated as a minister of Christ, and deputed and empowered to perform certain offices of Divine worship (Summa III.63.2). The sacramental character of order distinguishes the ordained from the laity. It gives the recipient in the diaconate, e.g., the power to minister officially, in the priesthood, the power to offer the Sacrifice and dispense the sacraments, in the episcopate the power to ordain new priests and to confirm the faithful." - Catholic Encyclopedia, "Holy Orders"

 

[Bob Crowley]

I stand corrected on the "mark of the soul", but the issue of Transubstantiation depends on an action by the Holy Spirit, separate from any "mark on the soul" which may be part of Catholic doctrine.

Protestants don't have the sacrament of Holy Orders. Having said that I remember a discussion with my old Presbyterian (ex-Methodist) pastor. I wasn't the only one who heard him either.

He said when he was ordained originally as a Methodist minister, he took an oath of office. He said as he did so "... this thrill was running up and down my spine...".

As far as I'm concerned his ordination was a sacrament, except there was no outward "Sign". He knew an invisible grace was being bestowed upon him even if nobody else did. He became an outstanding pastor.

The "invisible grace" was there even if the Protestants reject the visible sacrament of "Holy Orders".

Which makes me wonder if he could have participated in an "epiclesis" had he been participating in a Catholic Eucharist, wedding or funeral rite?

 

[actionsub]

Fair enough. I didn't realize other congregational subforums were as insecure about the tenets and practices of their faith - so as to desire such strigent protections from challenges to same.

Has nothing to do with insecurity about their beliefs as much as it is a simple protection about a forum being brigaded by opponents of certain beliefs "flooding the zone" and shutting down any real discussion.

 

[linux.poet]

Right, Kirk is consistently focused on what the bare minimum is that he needs to be considered a Christian. That to me seems completely wrongheaded.

I didn't get that vibe from Kirk at all. He seems to be focused on challenging Catholic doctrine on points he disagrees with rather than explaining what he believes. He's interviewing Michael, not the other way around.

Ultimately, the Catholics will likely have to give up papal infallibility, transubstantiation, and big parts of Mariology for the Evangelicals and the Catholics to be the same church again. There is no support for any of that in Scripture.

Also, I disagree with the idea that Evangelicals don't value doctrine. The above posts didn't say that idea, but they value doctrine a great deal, and many books have been written and much ink has been spilled to explain what they believe, the same way with all of the other denominations.