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

[gordonhooker]

Things like this quote from chapter XXV the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 probably didn't help either:

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

Referring to the Pope as the Antichrist is somewhat below the belt.

In my experience and I have a lot to do with my fellow brothers and sisters in the Catholic Franciscan Orders, I have seen more tribal thinking from some Protestants than I have from Roman Catholics.

 

[Tigger45]

Because non-efficacious sacraments.

Which Baptist group teach and believe in efficacious sacraments?

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Well, the RCC has adopted a half-dozen or so concepts (demands?) made by the Reformers, although it took her almost 500 years to do it, and, of course, without giving any credit to the Reformation. But maybe the rest of it will also come--in due course.

Rome does not change you have to read the documents very careful as they are masters of deception.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Because apostasy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your analysis of Catholic retreating to a safe zone of Catholic authority doesn't capture the arguments of Catholics or any pre-reformation Church which rejected Sola Scriptura (all of them). The idea of giving general trust to the Church is to safe-guard the very body of the Church from individual fragmentation we see replete in Protestantism in general where an individual who reads the bible has ultimately only their conscience to listen to.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Rome does not change you have to read the documents very careful as they are masters of deception.

Can you give an example of a Catholic Master of deception.

 

[Albion]

Rome does not change you have to read the documents very careful as they are masters of deception.

With some matters, that may be so. With those changes, the RCC uses some turn of phrase in order to maintain the fiction that the church never changes. With other changes, she simply says that the change isn't a change anyway since there never was any prohibition against it or else that it's not important--although in the case of the changes I referred to in the previous posts, those that the Protestants demanded and brought in, the RCC had condemned them very vigorously in the past.

 

[FireDragon76]

With some matters, that may be so. With those changes, the RCC uses some turn of phrase in order to maintain the fiction that the church never changes.

"As the Church has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Romanticism runs through and through the typical Catholic or Orthodox history and self-understanding.

Your analysis of Catholic retreating to a safe zone of Catholic authority doesn't capture the arguments of Catholics or any pre-reformation Church which rejected Sola Scriptura (all of them). The idea of giving general trust to the Church is to safe-guard the very body of the Church from individual fragmentation we see replete in Protestantism in general where an individual who reads the bible has ultimately only their conscience to listen to.

And I find that preferable to being told what to think by presumed authorities. Some people do not understand properly the freedom of the Christian.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Can you give an example of a Catholic Master of deception.

from Amazing Discoveries
For starters lets revisit the reformation issues

The core issue that drove the Reformation was that of authority. Either Christ is supreme or His supposed representative is supreme. There can be no middle road in this equation. Obviously, from the Protestant perspective the conclusions to be reached must be based on doctrine —Biblical doctrine. It is therefore imperative for Rome to introduce tradition as the context in which the Bible must be interpreted in order to authoritatively dispense salvation contrary to Biblical teachings. All papal doctrines stand or fall on this stumbling block, and this stumbling block is Christ.

• Papal infallibility,
• Papal primacy,
• the veneration of saints and Mary and relics,
• the beatification of saints,
• the priesthood as the bridge between laity and God,
• celibacy,
• priestly forgiveness of sins,
• the granting of indulgences,
• Catholic doctrines on transubstantiation,
• immortality and hell,
• Justification,
• the Atonement,
• and natural law rather than Divine law

as the basis for dictating morality are all based on tradition rather than the Word of God. None of these doctrinal issues have ever been rescinded and Vatican II did not change the Catholic position on a single doctrineix, including that on justification as defined by the Council of Trent which anathematized anyone teaching that Justification was by faith alone. In fact the reverse is true. All of the recent popes, including Pope Francis, have issued large scale indulgences and beatified saints to underscore their authority in issues of doctrine. Moreover, Catholic scholars, many of them Jesuits, have recently advocated very strongly for papal infallibility and a "obsequium religiosum" attitude toward the teachings of the magisterium. As Richard Gula puts it:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful accept their teaching and adhere to it with religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.” n. 25 of Lumen Gentium:x

The Joint declaration does not change any of these issues for the RCC. However the protestants have changed and are coming back to the mother church.

Can you provide a single above doctrine that the RCC has put in writing (in context also) that changed since Vatican II?

 

[Almost there]

I became a Christian in 1981. I attended Assembly of God for the first 18, then a bunch of others like Baptist, Christian, foursquare. IMO all churches have nutty beliefs here and there, and so do I. I consider none of them perfect, and mostly "man made religion". However, that is because they are full of people. People like me.

They serve an important purpose in that they are made up of a bunch of people who come together for the reason of fellowshiping with other people within the context of their common belief regarding their creator, and with an eye to understanding Him better and our relationship with Him better.

And it is very powerful to seek understanding in this fellowship rather than read scripture in a cave removed from all other humans. We are meant to fellowship with others in his name.

It speaks to what a friend once said: "I choose a church based on their potlucks." It sounds like a joke, but he says it to drive home a point: How close a body of believers is with each other and within the context of the teachings of Christ can be a window into how healthy that church is.

I'm not Catholic nor Protestant. I'm a follower of Christ. The Church I attend that most aligns with my basic beliefs happens to be my local Christian church, though we don't agree on a couple of things. I'm trying to change that.

 

[amariselle]

While I believe that we who believe are already one together in Christ.

Agreed. All true, born again believers are indeed "one together in Christ."

Already. I can appreciate the good work of making peace and encouraging love among Christians in a variety of churches.

Among true Christians who are united in the truth of the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ, yes. However, that is not what is happening with this "Ecumenical Movement" which is calling for unity, even to the extent of setting aside all doctrine.

Also, all too often we misunderstand love. True love isn't just speaking "positive" words and encouraging "unity" in all situations. Remember, Jesus, the greatest example of love that this world has ever known, specifically said that He came not to bring peace but a sword. There are in fact many many things worth dividing over, and many things that we must divide over. Unfortunately, the world we live in today is attempting to brainwash everyone with the idea that we had better just accept everything and everyone or we are not truly being "loving." This attitude and perspective has, unfortunately, entered the Church.

Christ said we are to love one another.

Indeed He did. True love, however, cannot exist without truth. Sometimes truly loving others means we need to speak up, warn and correct, and be separate from error and falsehood.

One thing I think helps a lot is to realize, to discover, to find out, about how different churches are using certain important words in different ways, so that when they talk to each other it is hard to understand precisely what the other person is saying!

Yes, we should definitely do careful research and study and test all things to be sure we know truth from error. (And we should be careful in regard to those who claim all division is nothing more than a semantic misunderstanding. That is simply not true. Words are powerful and they do having meaning, and we are not all necessarily saying the same thing even when we use the same words and terminology.)

And we often misunderstand, and don't even realize it, and then argue....

True, but sometimes the disagreement is genuine and based on Biblical truth, and should not simply be dismissed without careful consideration. We all have that responsibility.

It's a Tower of Babel situation, over and over.

The confusion and misunderstanding in regards to the Tower of Babel was sent by God. He is the one that willed and brought to pass the division that resulted, in order to bring an end to the (godless) "unity" between the people, who had disregarded God and joined together to promote themselves and their own power and achievements.

So, we need to understand that sometimes disunity and division is in fact God's will. The way is narrow, the Gospel is exclusive. That seems increasingly offensive to many, but truth is truth and it doesn't change.

And error can be like "leaven", it only takes a little of it to spread through the entire Church and lead to compromise. Which is why Scripture exhorts us to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints."

Perhaps this will always be challenging -- to understand what someone really means with their words -- until Christ returns.

Perhaps. The Church faces a huge problem and struggle today, however, with false unity. Christians simply are not doing the necessary "testing" to make sure that what is being said and done is in agreement with the Gospel and God's word. (Much of this comes from the elevation of personal "experiences" over sound Biblical teaching and study).

 

[fhansen]

This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups. The battle between Catholics and Protestants is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome. Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save, while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching. Protestants accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary, and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled. This is a problem 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.

Thus, many of 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 this 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. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments. Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.

Recommended Resource: The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants After 500 Years by Alison & Castaldo

Source: gotquestions.org


Quasar92

In the end the faith is received by us-and it's up to us who or what to agree with on the truths of that faith. Since Sola Scriptura has proven itself to be a bankrupt doctrine to me, the only option left is an entity, presumably (since it should be necessary in any case), and Scripturally (as Scripture also attests to this fact) established by God that possesses knowledge gained from the beginning, having a continuous living legacy of experience, i.e. "Tradition". It must, of necessity, be united in one faith. If no such entity exists, then our ability to know the faith with any degree of certainty is extremely compromised IMO, a matter of guess work; may the "best" exegete win in interpreting a bible that the majority of people couldn't even read down through the centuries due to illiteracy.

 

[amariselle]

Your analysis of Catholic retreating to a safe zone of Catholic authority doesn't capture the arguments of Catholics or any pre-reformation Church which rejected Sola Scriptura (all of them). The idea of giving general trust to the Church is to safe-guard the very body of the Church from individual fragmentation we see replete in Protestantism in general where an individual who reads the bible has ultimately only their conscience to listen to.

First of all, to suggest that the Catholic Church does not itself have "individual fragmentation" is entirely false. Anyone who does research into this will discover that the Catholic Church, while it may seem on the surface to be unified, is in many ways anything but. Which is why I find it extremely disingenuous for Catholics to play the "there are many Protestant and Evangelical denominations" card. If division within the Protestant and Evangelical world somehow makes all Protestant and Evangelical beliefs and doctrines invalid, then the Catholic Church has the same problem.

For examples one might wish to research the division (which continues to this day) caused by Vatican II. One may also wish to look into the extreme division and confusion Pope Francis in particular has caused within the Catholic Church, and not only among the laity, but many members of the clergy as well.

Secondly, like it or not we all have the responsibility to "test" what we are taught and to not simply take something as absolute truth just because high ranking members of a religious organization say that something is true. (Take the Bereans who tested what Paul taught, for example). Scripture repeatedly tells us to beware of deception and to guard ourselves against it.

As Christians we know we will all stand before God one day, and we are all responsible for our own lives in the matters of what we believed and what we did with that. (Holding to correct doctrine, earnestly contending for the faith once delievered etc.) It's not a matter of personal, human conscience, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit which all true believers have. So, to suggest that Protestants just go around listening to their own conscience and have no true or Godly guidance, is unequivocally false.

 

[Halbhh]

that we had better just accept everything and everyone or we are not truly being "loving."

We aren't to accept 'everything', but instead we are to accept everyone who believes in Him. That's not the same as never discussing important beliefs (such as the need to include Ephesians 2:10 and not omit it), but it is the same as accepting them even if they do not think just like you about some meaningful things, as for example something like 1/2 (or maybe 3/4ths) of your own congregation you attend will not agree with you about something or another that seems meaningful, but isn't crucial (and some will disagree about something crucial, in your own congregation).

But what does matter greatly? The saving things matter greatly.

The "Apostles' Creed" from the 4th century (long before widely available bibles of any kind that people could own personally and have at home), still in use, is a good example of the key beliefs needed to constitute saving faith. Let me quote it --

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

(as I understand, 'catholic' means universal to all believers, just as you already agree to; 'communion of saints' means to me that those already passed on are still part of the Body of Christ, that we are all together in Him)

See? This is meant to state key, essential aspects of belief. It doesn't matter if a believer thinks the Earth is 15,000 years old or 4.55 billion, and people can argue for days on that, but it does matter instead whether they believe Christ rose and will come again.

 

[amariselle]

We aren't to accept 'everything', but instead we are to accept everyone who believes in Him.

Exactly, I never said otherwise.

That's not the same as never discussing important beliefs (such as the need to include Ephesians 2:10 and not omit it), but it is the same as accepting them even if they do not think just like you about some meaningful things, as for example something like 1/2 (or maybe 3/4ths) of your own congregation you attend will not agree with you about something or another that seems meaningful, but isn't crucial (and some will disagree about something crucial, in your own congregation).

Agreed. I never said everyone would agree on absolutely everything. But, as you yourself said, in regards to the "crucial" or essential matters, we must be in agreement. (The Gospel for instance).

But what does matter greatly? The saving things matter greatly.

Again, agreed. I never said otherwise.

The "Apostles' Creed" from the 4th century (long before widely available bibles of any kind that people could own personally and have at home), still in use, is a good example of the key beliefs needed to constitute saving faith. Let me quote it --

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen."

(as I understand, 'catholic' means universal to all believers, just as you already agree to; 'communion of saints' means to me that those already passed on are still part of the Body of Christ, that we are all together in Him)

See? This is meant to state key, essential aspects of belief. It doesn't matter if a believer thinks the Earth is 15,000 years old or 4.55 billion, and people can argue for days on that, but it does matter instead whether they believe Christ rose and will come again.

Indeed. I wasn't referring to the age of the earth or "fringe" issues like that.

Also, I wished to clarify, as you used the example of the Tower of Babel and the confusion and misunderstanding brought about at that time, that God Himself caused that confusion and misunderstanding, so it really is not a good argument for suggesting that we shouldn't misunderstand each other as those at that time did.

Babel is a Biblical example of what happens when people come together in a godless or idolatrous "unity." God sent confusion because they were going astray. Not all "unity" is of God and not all division is against God's will.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups. The battle between Catholics and Protestants is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome. Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save, while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching. Protestants accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary, and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard. These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled. This is a problem 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.

Thus, many of 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 this 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. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments. Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.

Recommended Resource: The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants After 500 Years by Alison & Castaldo

Source: gotquestions.org


Quasar92

Most of the problem is the rewriting of history. Part of the reason for the Protestant revolt was Enlightenment thinking. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, rather than faith.

I know, the Enlightenment didn't 'start' until the 18th century, but advances in technology, such as the printing press, led the way. The whole theme was questioning authority, whether it was the authority of the Church or authority of the monarchy.

 

[Almost there]

Most of the problem is the rewriting of history. Part of the reason for the Protestant revolt was Enlightenment thinking. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, rather than faith.

I know, the Enlightenment didn't 'start' until the 18th century, but advances in technology, such as the printing press, led the way. The whole theme was questioning authority, whether it was the authority of the Church or authority of the monarchy.

Personally, I think the invention of the printing press is responsible for the reformation. And I think the internet is performing a similar cleansing on ALL modern "Christian" teaching.

The free exercise of information and ideas always brings clarity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, the RCC has adopted a half-dozen or so concepts (demands?) made by the Reformers, although it took her almost 500 years to do it, and, of course, without giving any credit to the Reformation. But maybe the rest of it will also come--in due course.

Um, no, not so.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Personally, I think the invention of the printing press is responsible for the reformation. And I think the internet is performing a similar cleansing on ALL modern "Christian" teaching.

The free exercise of information and ideas always brings clarity.

It sure helps to have a grounding in faith to understand the information and ideas. Faith provides context.

 

[Halbhh]

revolt

Well, not to rewrite anything at all, but if I was in your local church and you (I know it's not like this now, this is a hypothetical) said I should buy an indulgence for $50 and get 500 years off of purgatory, and I said I don't think it works that way, me saying so to you is not a "revolt". See? It's the wrong word for that. It is a "protest", yes. A "revolt" though it's not. That revolts came later is another thing, also to consider, but not the same thing as the protest. As you know Luther was excommunicated. He wanted to challenge a wrong (or 3), and wanted to remain in the church and challenge the wrong. One of the tragedies of the church itself as only the outward superficial church seems to be that sometimes people come to power that are not following the spirit. The real Church though is untouched by all of these. The real Church is all who believe truly, and mere mortal death, political wars, etc. do not affect us fundamentally.