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

[redleghunter]

Correct. The tough question is what happens when a believer dies and has unrepentant sin, to some like you it's all good even though there is unrepentant sin God still says oh well

Repentance does not equal confession. Nor does repentance mean performing penance.

What you are really asking is how does one atone for sins through penance (our actions) before we die?

Or what happens if I can't perform penance and receive absolution from a priest before I die?

Such an idea is alien to the NT church and Holy Scriptures.

First nothing we nor others (other fallen humans) do can purge us or cleanse us of our sins. If that were so, then we would deny the Blood of Christ cleanses us of all sin (1 John 1:7).

And as mentioned earlier not only does the Holy Spirit convict us of sin (John 16:18) but of righteousness (John 16:13).

I'll add that your apeal to the "one does not repent means we have license to sin" is a false premise as no one made that claim as far as I have read in this thread. It would amount to me saying having confession and thus absolution available to me allows me to sin from Sunday night to Saturday afternoon confession. Why would I live a pure life if I can confess it to a priest as often as I can stuff a confessional?

One would no doubt proclaim my example as extreme and an example of a reprobate heart.

 

[redleghunter]

No. The people who post these untruths about the Catholic Church are not better than God. Correct.

I was raised and educated Catholic through university.

What's being misrepresented here?

 

[redleghunter]

Except it's not hypothetical, we are all human and forgetful and we will die as believers with sin that we have done but have not repentant of. That is the different between evangelicals and many other Protestants, evangelicals do not like the deep question because they have to leave their comfort zones.

What makes us "believers?" And what is it exactly we are believing in?

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

As before you have not answered the question rather you keep saying it's fine a believer sins and dies without repenting of that sin even though sin offends God. By the way It's Christ Gospel, not St. Paul's

Sorry....Paul almost always refers to the Gospel as his Gospel or my Gospel,meaning himself....I never noticed until it was pointed out to me.....surprising but true
Sin sure does offend God ,so much that He decided to “ remember no more” the sins of Believers.
It is not “fine” if a Believer sins and dies without repenting of that sin but if this poor sap believed Paul’s zGospel thAt says he will be saved if he believed it,he will be saved.if not, God is a liar.very unlikely.

 

[Larry Wilgus]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion 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.

Because of this, 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 that never satisfies the difference but instead 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. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

To hide behind the "official teachings of the RCC" is a convenient path to remain in the dark. Most Catholics are instructed in Catholicism from infancy and never consider whether its doctrines are correct. They remain Catholics out of fear of retribution from family and friends, and enjoy the fleshly appetite for the trappings of religion. "Private" revelation of scripture is the only way someone receives salvation. When faith from God is released to the heart, your response of faith sets you free to encounter new life in Christ. The "comfort zone of religion" keeps multitudes of people in darkness. Tragic!

When the Holy Spirit is deposited in the heart of every believer, He came to instruct, correct, and led. The problem with Catholics and too many Protestants; they haven't developed a relationship with Him to trust the Word of God.

 

[Major1]

God is not restrained in any way. God can do ANYTHING. God's will, will be done.

Of course that is true. I do not know what you are trying to say!

 

[Major1]

So if a person dies with unrepentant sin what happens is an answer an evangelical can not give because they have not thought through the tough questions like that.

"IF"!!!! You are once again confusing RCC teaching with the Word of God my dear friend. Please, just for a moment stop and think about what you just said.

The only way for YOU and ME to NOT sin is to die!!!! Everyone who dies will have sin in their lives that they have not asked forgiveness for.

That is WHY a man/woman accepts the Lord Jesus Christ to begin with! If Christianity was what YOU perceive, there would not be anyone in heaven in the end because WE ALL SIN and almost all of us do not have the opportunity to confess before we die. Some yes, but not most.

When you accept that Jesus was the Son of God and He died then rose from the dead as the perfect sacrifice, that is all you need. If you are truly born again, then you will change your ways, but you will still sin every day and the shed blood of Jesus Christ pays the penalty for YOUR sin YOU did yesterday as well as it does for tom arrow.

 

[Major1]

Oh do tell, which REAL historians have recorded the above REAL history? It is one of the most blatant lies I've seen you post so far.

Then YOU look it up, do the work and prove it wrong instead of just making a "Drive bye" comment.

 

[Major1]

I think you're the one who needs to keep reading: Scripture, Ott, the Catechism. Otherwise it sounds as if you've been indoctrinated, not thinking or researching for yourself. Because YOU used Ott in post #812 to show that the Church teaches that we're not saved by Christ's sacrifice alone. But as I stated, Ott said the opposite, as does Scripture, as does the Catholic Church. Without Christ is there is no salvation; that's the teaching of the Church.

Incorrect! Do you really believe that????

The Council of Trent Session 6, can. 1..........
harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema".

The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

Thise are the words of YOUR own RCC not mine my friend.

 

[Vicomte13]

Never heard of that myself sorry. News to me.

You never heard of that because it's not true.

 

[Major1]

If I have learned anything here, Major it is the fact that these “ blind guides “ have an “answer” for anything and everything....mostly unbiblical. The mind reels.

Agreed! It reminds me of 2 Thess. 2:10........
"And God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe the lie".

 

[Major1]

You never heard of that because it's not true.

Of course! We all just sit around and think up this stuff.

 

[fhansen]

It's interpretive as the early church fathers came to the same conclusion as Luther looking at the same epistles of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians ans Colossians. Basil and Chyrsostom actually use "alone, solely, without works, only" because the text demands such.

For example:

​

It's interpretive as the early church fathers came to the same conclusion as Luther looking at the same epistles of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians ans Colossians. Basil and Chyrsostom actually use "alone, solely, without works, only" because the text demands such.

For example:

​

So now then you'd agree with post #812 that the RCC is being deceptive by omitting the word "alone". Or might you even, perhaps, perceive a fair bit of ignorance/indoctrination at work in the poster there?

 

[Major1]

So now then you'd agree with post #812 that the RCC is being deceptive by omitting the word "alone". Or might you even, perhaps, perceive a fair bit of ignorance/indoctrination at work in the poster there?

It does not matter who agrees with post #812. It is what it is !!!!

It is simply a statement of fact which YOU and everyone else can find out for yourselves. PLEASE investigate it!!!!

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc.

Are you going to sit there at your computer, and tell all of us that the RCC does not teach those things???????

Do you think that we just sit around making this stuff up? It is all right there in YOUR OWN Church's words!

Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, is maybe the most serious of all the charges which can be brought againt it, IMO.

Make sure YOU and all other Catholic believers understand what is being said here. The Bible truth is that Any claim that works or rituals or ANYTHING WE MUST DO must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.

 

[Major1]

Why you won't think you just keep repeating the same thing. In essence to you the sin is fine and dandy as long as we are believers.

PLEASE consider........
1967 Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical on Indulgences entitled Indulgentiarum Doctrina.

Take the time to actually READ it and you will find that through its doctrines of confession and penance, the mass, purgatory, indulgences the Church of Rome adds sacramental and moral works to the work of Christ.

By ITS own words from YOUR POPE, Justification and salvation are not through Christ alone but are instead a cooperative effort between Christ and man. Rome claims that it teaches justification by grace alone through the merits of Christ alone. The problem is that her interpretation is not the Scriptural teaching of grace alone and Christ alone. Just using the word does not mean that one is using it in a scriptural way.

 

[fhansen]

It does not matter who agrees with post #812. It is what it is !!!!

It is simply a statement of fact which YOU and everyone else can find out for yourselves. PLEASE investigate it!!!!

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc.

Are you going to sit there at your computer, and tell all of us that the RCC does not teach those things???????

Do you think that we just sit around making this stuff up? It is all right there in YOUR OWN Church's words!

Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, is maybe the most serious of all the charges which can be brought againt it, IMO.

Make sure YOU and all other Catholic believers understand what is being said here. The Bible truth is that Any claim that works or rituals or ANYTHING WE MUST DO must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.

I've been where you are. And I later came to find that the Reformed position is stunted, myopic, unbiblical, and in any case just plain wrong on many counts. It simply misses the mark on both the nature and will of God. OF COURSE I'm not going to tell you that the RCC doesn't teach these things. I REPEATEDLY affirmed them in every one of my posts. Faith is the foundation of our justification-not the end of it.

On top of that there is no universal "we" in Protestantism, meaning you can't even speak for it. Going by Scripture alone, Luther taught baptismal regeneration.

 

[prodromos]

Then YOU look it up, do the work and prove it wrong instead of just making a "Drive bye" comment.

LOL, There is nothing to look up. Constantine only made Christianity a legal religion and had the buildings and properties the State had confiscated, returned to the Christians (Edict of Milan. Real historical document). What you have claimed as REAL history is nothing more than your imagination. YOU made the claim. YOU need to back it up.

 

[ladodgers6]

IF you have been on this web site for any length of time you have seen that most of the conversations and debates revolve around the conflict between the Catholic faith and the Protestant faith.

There is constant back and forth banter and in the end the difference is still there.
IT seems that the debates always disintegrate into personal combat and verbal wars with the moderators finally ending the thread and in fact I expect that same thing to happen to this thread.

It seems to me that the conflict comes from our basic human nature in dealing with fundamental disagreements concerning eternal truths. The Protestants understand that the RCC teaches a "work-gospel" that can not save and the Catholic church thinks that Protestants teach a "greasy - grace" gospel that requires nothing more than a simple confession of wrong doing/sin due to the emotional preaching of a man.

However, looking deeper than just that the question must be WHY?
In My Opinion the real rift that ignites the debate is rooted in AUTHORITY!

How anyone answers that question always determines the answers to all the other questions.
I think that every Catholic believer will agree that when it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t anything to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

Therefore we have the ROOT of the conflict. Whenever there is a theological discussion 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.

Because of this, 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 that never satisfies the difference but instead 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. IMO, Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Thank you for this thread. I will admit; being a convinced Classical Calvinist; that we do hurl insults at the RCC, when it is not needed or Christian like. There is absolutely no need for it, even if they hurl insults at us!

I have been called every name you could think of, and ironically both sides discuss theology? How can that be? How can we be so nasty to each other, when discussing God's word? Both sides are guilty of this, there are no exceptions, whatsoever!

Let us speak, refute and defend what we believe and why we believe it, like Christians and believers in the Lord. No need for hateful words, that do not benefit anyone!

For the record, the Protestant Reformers did not want to destroy the RCC. They wanted to Reform it back to Scripture. Corruption and Indulgences of the RCC bought about the Protestant Reformation. People were tried of the RCC corruption and the infiltration of people who were appointed in important positions in the RCC, that got greedy, and made up false dogmas to increase their wealth. The Reformers saw what was happening and rose up to battle this evil that was corrupting the RCC. A lot of the Protestant Reformers were Catholic monks, etc..

I bring this up because a lot of people do not know the history of the Protestant Reformation. BTW, the Catholic church did not want the common people to have Bibles. The Reformers translated the Bible into the common people's language, so that all could read it.

And as far as the Gospel goes. If you really do your home work. The end conclusion of the RCC's Gospel, is a work-righteousness to attempt to earn God's Grace. Do not take my word for it. Please I strongly urge you to research it for yourselves. I was once a Catholic, but now I am a Protestant Reformer too!

All in Love, not hate!

By Christ Alone we are saved!

 

[Arsenios]

Most of the citations given by Catholics for their faith comes pre-schism...the same traditions that you would hold to, the teachings of the church fathers.

Much as I love your optimism here, it is simply not true...

In days of old (not that long ago, say before second Vatican counsel) Catholics would cite Papal authority and the encyclicals and bulls of the church,

"Encyclicals and bulls of the church" are only of the Latin post-schism Church, and had no place in the earlier conciliar Church...

but this has lost favour as most realize the folly of relying on the teachings of corrupt, vile men.

The great Mystery of the Faith of Christ is the Union of God and man, the Marriage of the Lamb, in a manner that finds God in our poor and earthen vessels of clay... If one cuts men off from God and persuades them that they do not have God any longer but now only have a Book, the Holy Bible of the Ekklesia of God, by which they are all by themselves to figure out their reltionship with God, and do this by calling the Holy Fathers of the Ellkesia of God, beginning with John and Peter and Paul to all be corrupt and vile men, one will not benefit those so pursuaded... Christ sent forth His Disciples whom He Himself had discipled to disciple all the peoples of the earth... And in this, Christ did not fail... Nor did His Body, the Church, of Which He alone is Her Head...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I thought Catholics believe Jesus IS God .... they do, don't they ?

One would most assuredly HOPE they do!

Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior...

And tomorrow is His Birthday!



Arsenios