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

[Root of Jesse]

From its cloudy inception, the INSTITUTION of the RCC has always claimed that is "the one true church", that it is only giver of the 7 fonts of Grace (5 of which deal with the subject of sin), that Papal Magisterium and/or Sacred Tradition can be SUPREME over Scripture, (which was concealed from the masses in the Vulgate), and numerous other doctrinal errors which divide the Body of Christ, The "CHURCH".

Some reformation of the RCC has occurred. Not enough. They must recognize that Scripture is SUPREME and the only God-given revelation that can unite us.

Cloudy inception at Pentecost? What we know is that Christ instituted one Church. What we believe about the Sacraments is that the Holy Spirit dispenses the grace of the sacraments, that a properly ordained priest has to invoke the Holy Spirit. We don't believe that the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition are supreme over Scripture, but that the three are supreme together. The Church did not conceal anything of Scripture-it was read to the mostly illiterate masses every Sunday.
The errors are in your understanding, friend.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, not to rewrite anything at all, but if I was in your 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?

But that's not what happened. It is true that a traveling missionary suggested that, if the parishioner would give money for the rebuilding of St. Peter's in Rome, he'd be granted an indulgence, which is defined as remission of the temporal punishment in purgatory still due for sins after absolution. It was insinuated to be buying your way out of purgatory. It wasn't an official teaching of the Church. Luther's reaction was correct-his action was not. The Church was raising funds for the rebuild of St. Peter's, and giving alms is part of the remission of punishment in purgatory, along with confession and prayer. Luther over reacted.

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.

It was a revolt. Basically, Luther, and others demanded that the Church correct things Luther's way, not the Church's way. As an illustration, do you understand that the Catholic Church is still working on the implementation of the decrees of both Vatican I and Vatican II? The Church often works slowly. The Church has been in reformation for more than 2000 years. Luther wasn't happy with how fast it was happening.

 

[anna ~ grace]

When Protestants can appreciate and give due respect to Catholic souls like Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Calcutta, and John of the Cross, and when Catholics can acknowledge and rejoice in the very real and rich faith, fidelity, and good works of Protestants, for Christ's sake, that will be a good thing.

I can no longer accept Sola Fidé or Sola Scriptura; but above all, regardless of anything else, should I stop seeing my fellow Christians as that; fellow Christians; it will be a horrible day for my soul.

 

[Halbhh]

It was a revolt. Basically, Luther, and others demanded that the Church correct things Luther's way, not the Church's way. As an illustration, do you understand that the Catholic Church is still working on the implementation of the decrees of both Vatican I and Vatican II? The Church often works slowly. The Church has been in reformation for more than 2000 years. Luther wasn't happy with how fast it was happening.

You know, to the extent people feel there was a historical wrong not addressed (though we can't fix all wrongs from centuries ago really) it would be very interesting to those of us who have had our church show one of the 'Luther and the Reformation' types of films (like on a Friday evening during October) to hear a careful and non-polemical and very neutral and highly accurate examination of the events portrayed in the film. A review by someone that has done a lot of careful research, and puts information above winning. Here's one I'd like reviewed that way: In our own church, this one was shown --
I bet many hundreds of thousands of people saw this one, or one almost just like it
https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Joseph-Fiennes/dp/B0002C9D9U

Here's another interesting set of 23m lectures we have being shown in one of our weekly study groups, which anyone with Amazon Prime Video can stream.

I'd love a review of the facts presented, since he's an impressive lecturer who seems careful and non-polemical and very neutral. If someone is a great lecturer, and gets whatever I already know right, I still feel a need to check facts, and there are many to check in this:

https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Joseph-Fiennes/dp/B0002C9D9U

 

[anna ~ grace]

Also, souls like ones mentioned above have and still do increase my desire to be united to the Body that produced them. And grew them into what they are.

Holiness can be found in many places, for sure. And that's good! But it seems to me that the strongest currents of holiness flow from the souls in the Catholic Church.

Now surely there have been awful Catholics, awful Popes, and awful things done by Catholics. Anyone who tries to dispute that must be crazy. But still, the giants in Christ seem in my eyes to be sons and daughters of the Latin Church. And if these souls got to love and become like Christ that greatly thanks to where they were, as a Christian, I would like to be with them, at least spiritually.

 

[Halbhh]

When Protestants can appreciate and give due respect to Catholic souls like Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Calcutta, and John of the Cross, and when Catholics can acknowledge and rejoice in the very real and rich faith, fidelity, and good works of Protestants, for Christ's sake, that will be a good thing.

That's Today. At least with me and my close Catholic friend, and I know others are just like us.

All three saints you list are ones I deeply respect for their good works. My highly educated Catholic friend who talks for hours with me respects protestants.

I think it's common among the laity surely that we are already widely doing Love One Another between the churches.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You know, to the extent people feel there was a historical wrong not addressed (though we can't fix all wrongs from centuries ago really) it would be very interesting to those of us who have had our church show one of the 'Luther and the Reformation' types of films (like on a Friday evening during October) to hear a careful and non-polemical and very neutral and highly accurate examination of the events portrayed in the film. A review by someone that has done a lot of careful research, and puts information above winning. Here's one I'd like reviewed that way: In our own church, this one was shown --
I bet many hundreds of thousands of people saw this one, or one almost just like it
https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Joseph-Fiennes/dp/B0002C9D9U

Here's another interesting set of 23m lectures we have being shown in one of our weekly study groups, which anyone with Amazon Prime Video can stream.

I'd love a review of the facts presented, since he's an impressive lecturer who seems careful and non-polemical and very neutral

https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Joseph-Fiennes/dp/B0002C9D9U

Based on the description, I wouldn't watch it. I do read history a lot. I'm not saying that Luther was a bad guy in all this, he probably had some legit beefs with the Church, along with his own weaknesses. He allowed his own weaknesses to get the better of him.
FWIW, I have beefs with the Catholic Church, but none of them regard the deposit of the faith. IT's all peripheral, like how the pope butts into politics and how bishops get involved in politics, too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's Today. At least with me and my close Catholic friend, and I know others are just like us.

All three saints you list are ones I deeply respect for their good works. My highly educated Catholic friend who talks for hours with me respects protestants.

I think it's common among the laity surely that we are already widely doing Love One Another between the churches.

There are many Catholic Saints who came out of the time of the Protestant Reformation.

I also respect Protestants. I just think they deny themselves the entire banquet.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...that a properly ordained priest has to invoke the Holy Spirit.

It's good to know that the Holy Spirit was given permission. Wouldn't want him coming in and just doing things by his own initiative, like at Pentecost.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's good to know that the Holy Spirit was given permission. Wouldn't want him coming in and just doing things by his own initiative, like at Pentecost.

Who says he's given permission? We ask the Holy Spirit to come down, as He did at the baptism of Jesus. Got a problem with that?

 

[amariselle]

Who says he's given permission? We ask the Holy Spirit to come down, as He did at the baptism of Jesus. Got a problem with that?

The Holy Spirit is with all true believers. We don't need to ask Him to "come down."

Which is also why I don't care for songs that talk about the Holy Spirit coming and filling the "atmosphere" or something to that effect.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Holy Spirit is with all true believers. We don't need to ask Him to "come down."

Which is also why I don't care for songs that talk about the Holy Spirit coming and filling the "atmosphere" or something to that effect.

That's fine, for you. But the image in the Gospel shows differently. The Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit manifests in forms of fire and wind as well. Ready to get back on topic?

 

[amariselle]

That's fine, for you.

This is not about me or my personal preference, it is about what Scripture tells us.

But the image in the Gospel shows differently.

Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers. (We are the "temple" of the Holy Spirit.)

The Holy Spirit came down in the form of a dove.

Yes, on Jesus Christ, at His baptism. None of us are Jesus, however, and there is no reason, Biblically, to believe He will manifest in that way on us.

The Holy Spirit manifests in forms of fire and wind as well.

Yes. I'm sure He can do so if He pleases. My point was what the Scriptures assure us of, as true believers, in that we can know the Holy Spirit is present and does not need to be repeatedly called down.

Ready to get back on topic?

No need to be dismissive. I was responding to your comment.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes. I'm sure He can do so if He pleases. My point was what the Scriptures assure us of, as true believers, in that we can know the Holy Spirit is present and does not need to be repeatedly called down.

Man is subject to God, not the other way around. Some folks apparently view the Holy Spirit as a remote controlled deity commanded by a guy in a robe touching someone else's head.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is not about me or my personal preference, it is about what Scripture tells us.



Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit indwells all true believers. (We are the "temple" of the Holy Spirit.)



Yes, on Jesus Christ, at His baptism. None of us are Jesus, however, and there is no reason, Biblically, to believe He will manifest in that way on us.

Really? You don't believe that you were created in the image and likeness of God, and that you are a child of God, with whom he is well pleased? That's what Baptism does for us, along with removing the stain of sin.

Yes. I'm sure He can do so if He pleases. My point was what the Scriptures assure us of, as true believers, in that we can know the Holy Spirit is present and does not need to be repeatedly called down.

So we call the Holy Spirit to bless our children, bless our marriages, bless our religious leaders, bless our sacrificial meal, bless us as we ask forgiveness of sins, and bless us as we pass on to eternal life. That's a problem to you?

No need to be dismissive. I was responding to your comment.

But the conversation is off topic. I'm not being dismissive, just trying to steer it back to what the OP asked. My response was to some snide comment about the "RC" or something or other.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Man is subject to God, not the other way around. Some folks apparently view the Holy Spirit as a remote controlled deity commanded by a guy in a robe touching someone else's head.

Um, no. Again, you have a problem with asking the Holy Spirit to bless us? All I can say is WOW!

 

[Phil 1:21]

Um, no. Again, you have a problem with asking the Holy Spirit to bless us? All I can say is WOW!

 

[amariselle]

Really? You don't believe that you were created in the image and likeness of God, and that you are a child of God, with whom he is well pleased?

Yeah, that's what I said. Come on now.

That's what Baptism does for us, along with removing the stain of sin.

Actually, water cannot wash away sin. Only the precious blood of Jesus can do that.

So we call the Holy Spirit to bless our children, bless our marriages, bless our religious leaders, bless our sacrificial meal, bless us as we ask forgiveness of sins, and bless us as we pass on to eternal life. That's a problem to you?

Yeah, again, that's not what I said. Kindly address my actual comments rather than accusing me of things I did not say, perhaps then we can have an accurate and honest discussion.

Also, we had better understand that while we definitely do ask God for His blessings, we do not command Him to do anything. We pray "Thy will be done."

But the conversation is off topic. I'm not being dismissive, just trying to steer it back to what the OP asked. My response was to some snide comment about the "RC" or something or other.

Alright. I'm not interested in continuing to discuss this in any case, as there was no response to what I actually wrote.

God bless.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

There are certainty different ideologies within the RCC yet I would be hard pressed to say they are not in communion with each other since they share the same Eucharist and recognise each other's status as Catholics part of the Church. The same could not be said for Protestantism which divides amongst itself on principal and does not find it necessary to recognise each other or have a universal communion amongst themselves. Lutherans and Baptists within the protestant schema don't need communion, so long as both adhere to the essentials of the faith. To put it another away, communion is nice but it is not necessary.

I would agree with your assessment of Pope Francis mind you, but even he hasn't divided the Church so thoroughly as Protestantism divided itself and many Catholics have not been shy in their criticisms of his pontificate.

Also I said that Protestants ultimately listen to their conscience and i would clarify that they do this by appeal to the scripture. How is this to falsely characterise the fundamental ethos of Protestantism when Protestants prove my assertion by their divisions and refusal to submit to anything but their interpretation of the bible? They do this with direct appeal to the Spirit mind you, as if no one else has it. That might be one of the fundamental differences between the ancient approach and the protestant approach, is that the ancient recognised the Spirit in more than just the self, but in the community as a whole. Thus to submit to ecclesiastical authority or even an educated lay teacher is sometimes the best option in the mind of Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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?

All this shows is that you dissagree with the RCC, not that they are masters of deception. To my mind most educated Roman Catholics like educated Protestants and Eastern Orthodox actually believe in what their respective traditions teach and are not doing out of a false loyalty or deceive the masses. That's Jack Chick levels of conspiracy which are unwarrented.

Please, give some names of masters of deception within the Roman Catholic Church, men or women who did not believe in what they wrote or taught.