Protestant Catechism, is there such a thing?

[Fidelibus]

In fact, there are a number of different Catholic type church bodies, just as there are a number of different Protestant denominations. I would suppose that a careful student would first decided if the Catholic kind is the one for him, or if it is the Protestant kind. Then, among those in the preferred category, make a choice.

I don't know about you, but I am talking about the Rites of the Catholic Church that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Like the Latin rite, Chaldean rite, the Byzantine, ect. I believe there are twenty plus Rites in total.

You, however, insist upon starting with one denomination from the Catholic category and comparing it--simultaneously--against every church in the Protestant one. That is erroneous and (let's be frank, here) entirely self-serving.{/quote]

Again, I am speaking of those churches (or rites in this case) that are in full communion with Rome.The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that there is one universal Church, the “unique Catholic Church,” and many particular churches, each a community of Catholics who are joined by faith and the sacraments and their bishop (CCC 833). The Second Vatican Council teaches that from these individual churches comes the fullness of the one and only Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium 23).

With that being said, I am pretty sure all these different Rites teach that the Sacrament of Baptism is regenerative, the Real presence in the Eucharist, marriage is between one man and one woman. abortion is not okay, Euthanasia is not okay, ect. ect. Unlike some of the differnt denominations that teach otherwise.

 

[Fidelibus]

It's Catholic arrogance and ignorance to lump all protestants together. If you have not figured it out already, you need to read some of the documents listed.

Arrogant? Ignorant? Let's see. would you not agree that universally throughout all of Protestantism, the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith? If so, do you not find it problematic that all these different denominations teach from the same source...... the bible...... but have different beliefs and interpretations and teachings of the bible?

For example, as I posted earlier, where some Protestant denominations teach the rapture, some don't. Some teach a pre-tribulation rapture. Others teach a mid-tribulation rapture. There are denominations that teach men can marry men and women can marry women. There are denominations that say marriage is between one man and one woman. There are denominations that worship on Saturday. There are denominations that that worship on Sunday. A number of denominations say abortion is okay. A number of denominations say it's not.

You don't find this problematic?

 

[Albion]

I don't know about you, but I am talking about the Rites of the Catholic Church that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Like the Latin rite, Chaldean rite, the Byzantine, ect. I believe there are twenty plus Rites in total.

Then compare that church and its rites, etc with some other church, not with thousands of others at once.

The latter is a verbal trick used in order to be able to say, "See there? We (the one denomination, RC or any other) are united! But they (everyone else) are divided! Ergo, we must be correct while they are divided, etc."

Of course "they" are divided! You set it up that way by comparing a single one to a thousand others!

It's a false comparison, that's all.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Arrogant? Ignorant? Let's see. would you not agree that universally throughout all of Protestantism, the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith? If so, do you not find it problematic that all these different denominations teach from the same source...... the bible...... but have different beliefs and interpretations and teachings of the bible?

For example, as I posted earlier, where some Protestant denominations teach the rapture, some don't. Some teach a pre-tribulation rapture. Others teach a mid-tribulation rapture. There are denominations that teach men can marry men and women can marry women. There are denominations that say marriage is between one man and one woman. There are denominations that worship on Saturday. There are denominations that that worship on Sunday. A number of denominations say abortion is okay. A number of denominations say it's not.

You don't find this problematic?

While most, if not all "protestants" would would say "Yes"; the application of different interpretive standards and as much as they might deny it; "traditions" have indeed led to various diametrically opposed theologies, doctrines and practices.

If one reads Scripture without these various "criticisms" like the Catholic Church does one can not find justification for the abuses you listed above. Such is why Confessional Lutherans share the same position as the Catholic Church does regarding these "abuses".

Yes, Scripture is our norm, and Scripture is more tangible than Tradition; but is because we test tradition with Scripture that we retain those traditions that are supported by God's Holy Word. One such tradition is the Mass which is translated and adapted from the Pre-Trent Latin Mass; making in as traditional as the the Extraordinary Rite (also adapted and based on the Pre-Trent Mass), and certainly retains more catholicity than than the Novis Ordo.

So, the point I was trying to make is that one can not lump all protestants together as one cohesive unit when our Synods (LCC/LCMS) have more in common with the CC than with the United methodists, Presbyterians, Penticostals, and almost everyone else. Such is why there is on-going, official dialogues between our two Churches, and very little between either of us and the the other so-called denominations.

Thus may statements earlier; to do so, is very presumptuous and ill informed.

 

[Athanasius377]

Arrogant? Ignorant? Let's see. would you not agree that universally throughout all of Protestantism, the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith? If so, do you not find it problematic that all these different denominations teach from the same source...... the bible...... but have different beliefs and interpretations and teachings of the bible?

The problem here is Rome has the same issue. Besides Matt 16:18 and Luke 1:28 where has Rome given her infallible or even the final interpretation of Scripture? Given that Rome still adheres to the medieval four-fold reading of scripture how can she give such an interpretation? In other words, as others have pointed out, does not Rome have the same problem? The way I see it and other Protestants see it is that Rome is a really big tent housing a lot of contradictory views. Just as an Eastern Catholic about the Filoque clause and I bet you you will get different answers. The one defining aspect of Rome is I’m my estimation is one has much freedom of belief as long as one acknowledges the primacy and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Paidiske]

Let's see. would you not agree that universally throughout all of Protestantism, the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith?

No. That would be a false premise.

 

[charsan]

The problem being is because they would soon learn that it is impossible have a Catechism of the Protestant Church

The problem is there is no "Protestant Church" as if it is one thing like Catholicism or Orthodox is. I would say evangelicals have no real catechism type of thing and it can be very confusing.

would you not agree that universally throughout all of Protestantism, the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith

Not at all. In fact the is a few different rules like prima scriptura, not all who are not part of the Catholic Church are not the same. I use to be Catholic and am not like any typical protestant or evangelical.

 

[hedrick]

Okay then, let's say that somebody was Muslim, Buddist, or some other non-Christian religion, and was thinking of converting to Christianity. In doing so, they were trying to decide in either Catholicism or Protestantism, and wanted to find out what each of them taught. To what source could they go?

That’s a kind of weird question, since I wouldn’t send someone who wants to know what it’s like to be a Christian to a catechism even if there was only one. I doubt a Catholic would either.

Being a Christian includes worship, prayer, and participation in the Christian community. Personal piety is centered on Jesus, which means an understanding of him is important. I normally suggest that people attend a local church. If you look at questions like this in CF, a lot of us say it’s not so important exactly what denomination that church is, though there are significant differences between major families.

Even with beliefs, catechisms are difficult for newcomers, because they list beliefs, but not why we believe them or what their significance is. It used to be that people pointed to books like C S Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” for that. It was specifically intended to be useful across a wide range of denominations. Many people still recommend it, though for the mainline churches that book is dated. For this kind of thing, there’s really at most 3 major Protestant traditions, and for things a newcomer needs to know, there’s a lot of commonality among those three. (The 3 I’m thinking of are evangelical, traditional confessional churches, and mainline. There are lots of other traditions, e.g. Pentecostal, but their beliefs are really very close to evangelicals.)

Even within the Catholic tradition, there's a great range. Compare traditionalist Catholics with liberal Catholics. One of the major debates among Protestants has to do with free will. That same debate exists among Catholics, although it's not very visible to the typical lay person. The CCC wouldn't give a newcomer much of a sense of that range, nor is it intended to.

Rather than Mere Christianity, I tend to use a couple of N T Wright’s books. They give a picture of Jesus that is based on more recent NT scholarship than Lewis’. They’re probably most suited to mainline Christianity (or Catholics), but they also emphasize the core of Christianity rather than specific denominational beliefs. I don’t have specific recommendations for evangelicals, but I’m sure they exist (and Lewis would generally be fine for them).

 

[Paidiske]

Rather than Mere Christianity, I tend to use a couple of N T Wright’s books.

Agree with your post as a whole. I tend to recommend Rowan Williams' book, Tokens of Trust, for a basic introduction.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<Snip>The way I see it and other Protestants see it is that Rome is a really big tent housing a lot of contradictory views. Just as an Eastern Catholic about the Filoque clause and I bet you you will get different answers. The one defining aspect of Rome is I’m my estimation is one has much freedom of belief as long as one acknowledges the primacy and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

A few thoughts:

While Confessional Lutheranisms's tent is a bit more restrictive, are we much different in our approach? We too have much freedom when it comes to belief and/or practice; along as it does not contradict Scripture (primary) and the Book of Concord as an exposition of the Bible; these beliefs and practices are called Adiaphora or things of indifference. Such is why many Confessional Lutherans refer to our Church as "Evangelical Catholics" in that Papal authority has been traded for Biblical Authority; and the Keys of St. Peter are not in the hands of a single Bishop, but in possession of the whole Church (which does indeed include the Roman or Vatican Catholics even though many Protestants would tell us otherwise). The only Churches that would not have the Key's of St. Peter are those who refuse to administer them.

 

[Fidelibus]

Then compare that church and its rites, etc with some other church, not with thousands of others at once.

Yet (and I'm sure you'd agree) most if not all these thousands (thank you for agreeing there are) of Protestant denominations/sects use the bible as the sole source for their various and differing beliefs. That's what I'm comparing between the Catholic Church and Protestantism

The latter is a verbal trick used in order to be able to say, "See there? We (the one denomination, RC or any other) are united!

Not a trick. The Catholic Church and all her Rites are united (see Orientale Lumen 2) where JPII states..." the Catholic Church is made up of Christians who are united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government, formed into various groups held together by a hierarchy and forming distinct churches or rites (OL 2)."

He also wrote that the authentic variety within the Church does not harm its unity but “manifests it,” and each particular church “should retain its traditions whole and entire” (OL 2).

But they (everyone else) are divided!

With all the different Protestant denominations (as you agreed) and just about as many different beliefs, different interpretation of Scripture, and different customs, you think Protestantism "is not" divided?

Ergo, we must be correct while they are divided, etc.

Hmm... in what post did I say that?

Of course "they" are divided! You set it up that way by comparing a single one to a thousand others!

I didn't set nothing up, as I said above:

"With all the different Protestant denominations (as you agreed) and just about as many different beliefs, different interpretation of Scriptre, and different customs, you think Protestantism "is not" divided?"

What part of what I posted here is not true?

It's a false comparison, that's all.

I disagree.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you think that. Do you not find it odd, that the articles and/or dogma of the head of the church seemingly differ from that of the church he led?

They are not of my church and never were, but

First, these articles represent the faith of Henry VIII himself who was a Catholic to his dying day and is often the target of Anglican bashers on CF who seem not to know that.

Second, these articles have never had official standing in the Church and died with Henry.

Third, they were meant only as a guideline to hold back the excesses of the religious extremists of the time. That's all.

They represent an interesting footnote in the history of Christianity, just like a lot of Papal proclamations that litter the history of the Roman Catholic Church and which no one pays any attention to anymore.


Actually, there isn't a lot of drift in them, whatever else might be said about them.

The Anglican church does believe in the Bible, infant baptism, remission from sin as a characteristic of a sacrament, that images may be used, salvation is by faith, Real Presence is believed, there is no Purgatory, traditional vestments are to be used, holy days are to be observed, and the saints are to be honored.

 

[Albion]

Yet (and I'm sure you'd agree) most if not all these thousands (thank you for agreeing there are) of Protestant denominations/sects use the bible as the sole source for their various and differing beliefs. That's what I'm comparing between the Catholic Church and Protestantism

Yes, but the churches classified as Catholic are all in disagreement with each other, so what does that say about turning to "Holy Tradition" instead? And please do not respond with that claim about "the Church" having 23 different rites but that it's just one church.

I am referring to the Church of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Polish National Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, the Ethiopian church, Mar Thoma, etc. etc. -- ALL OF WHICH are classified as Catholic no less than Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists are classified as Protestant.

 

[Fidelibus]

No. That would be a false premise.

I find this most interesting. I see you list yourself as Anglican, so are you suggesting that the Anglican Church teaches that the Scripture alone "is not" sufficiant as a sole rule of faith, that there is more, other than just the bible? Like maybe Sacred Tradition?

 

[Fidelibus]

Not at all. In fact the is a few different rules like prima scriptura, not all who are not part of the Catholic Church are not the same. I use to be Catholic and am not like any typical protestant or evangelical.

I see you do not list the specific Protestant denomination you belong too, so I'll as you the same thing I asked of Paidiske. Is it your belief and the belief of the church you attend that Scripture alone is or is not sufficient as a sole rule of faith, that there is more, other than just the bible?

 

[charsan]

I see you do not list the specific Protestant denomination you belong too, so I'll as you the same thing I asked of Paidiske. Is it your belief and the belief of the church you attend that Scripture alone is or is not sufficient as a sole rule of faith, that there is more, other than just the bible?

Actually my Church affiliation is under my Avatar and the answer to your question is yes, we do not subscribe to sola scriptura. You can't put everyone together in the protestant world there are to many of them and in fact I separate them by protestant and evangelical because both are different types. My Church is not protestant anymore than the Orthodox are, we do not protest the Catholic Church. I have much more in common with Catholics (love of the Eucharist, Love of the Rosary, a devotion to St. Micheal and the Sacred Heart etc.) than I do any protestant

 

[Fidelibus]

Yes, but the churches classified as Catholic are all in disagreement with each other, so what does that say about turning to "Holy Tradition" instead? And please do not respond with that claim about "the Church" having 23 different rites but that it's just one church.

Let me quote from Catholic Apologist Carl Olson of Catholic Answers:

All Catholics are united by common doctrines and beliefs, but they often express them in different ways. In Eastern Christianity, theology is not viewed in the scholastic manner that it has often been in the West. Theology cannot be separated from spirituality; they are intimately joined and related. For example, because of the theological emphasis on the participation of the baptized in God’s divine life, even infants are chrismated (confirmed) and receive the Holy Eucharist from baptism onward.

The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity summarizes Eastern Christian spirituality in this way:

From the earliest centuries, the Christian East has understood the practice of theology as primarily a personal communion with Ho Theos, the Father, through the Logos, Christ, in the Holy Spirit, an experience lived in the state of prayer.

Traditions, devotions, and the liturgical life are intertwined; they can be distinguished but never separated. Contemplation of the Triune God is the goal of life, the goal of theology, and the pinnacle of spirituality.

In Eastern Christianity there is an intense focus on the reality of divinization, the partaking of the divine nature of the Triune God. A passage from St. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (c. 180) aptly captures this point:

For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man and he who was the Son of God became the Son of Man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving adoption, might become son of God.

There is great emphasis on the belief that Christians are called “to become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4), not just to be “saved” from sin. Those united to Christ in faith and by the sacraments truly do become filled with the supernatural life of the Triune God and do become true children of God.

Why It’s Important:

Knowledge of Eastern Catholicism (and Eastern Christianity in general) can be very helpful to the Catholic apologist, although that shouldn’t be the primary reason for gaining such knowledge. As the fictional conversation between Paul and Richard indicates, the reality of Eastern Catholicism can clear away many misconceptions and misunderstandings about Catholicism in general.

For example, the fact that married men are allowed to become priests in the Eastern Churches helps to do away with the notion that the Catholic Church has dogmatically declared that all priests must be celibate; it can help to demonstrate the difference between dogmas and disciplines.

Many people, including some Catholics, think the Christian world has always been made up of Catholics and Protestants, so it’s helpful to point out that prior to the Protestant Reformation, all Christians—Catholic, Orthodox, and Ancient Oriental—believed in the Real Presence, the sacramental forgiveness of sins, a priestly hierarchy, and veneration of the saints. Knowledge of Eastern Christianity, both Catholic and otherwise, can be invaluable when discussing Church history, doctrine, and practice.

Most importantly, the Eastern Churches show forth the authentic unity and diversity that is truly Catholic. Eastern Catholics are concrete evidence that the Catholic Church is not a monolithic and homogenous Western institution but an ancient, catholic, and worldwide communion of the faithful united by dogma, doctrine, and the See of Peter. In the beautiful words of the Catechism:

The rich variety of ecclesiastical disciplines, liturgical rites, and theological and spiritual heritages proper to the local churches unified in a common effort, shows all the more resplendently the catholicity of the undivided Church (CCC 835).

I am referring to the Church of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Polish National Catholic Church, The Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, the Ethiopian church, Mar Thoma, etc. etc. -- ALL OF WHICH are classified as Catholic no less than Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists are classified as Protestant.

All of which are classified as Catholic? Hmmm.... could you please show evidence that these churches you listed are in "full communion" with the Bishop of Rome as the 23 Rites I mentioned are.

 

[Fidelibus]

Actually my Church affiliation is under my Avatar and the answer to your question is yes, we do not subscribe to sola scriptura

As in?

 

[charsan]

As in?

As in what? I do not understand I am sorry. We use the Church Fathers as well as Scripture. I also added to my previous post in case you missed it

 

[Paidiske]

I find this most interesting. I see you list yourself as Anglican, so are you suggesting that the Anglican Church teaches that the Scripture alone "is not" sufficiant as a sole rule of faith, that there is more, other than just the bible? Like maybe Sacred Tradition?

We believe that the Scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation; but we do not look to Scripture alone to establish our beliefs and practices.