Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant? (2)

[Bill McEnaney]

In the U.S., many liberals use the word "hate" often enough that I don't know what they mean by it. Maybe that's because I almost obsess my need to write precisely. I even know of some people who thought the word "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]rdly" was a racial slur. But it means "cheap" or "miserly."

Everybody, our server must be politically because it bleeped a synonym for "cheap" in Scrooge's sense that sounds like the N-word and a phrase meaning "racial insult." I didn't intend to insult anyone. I wrote about a word that some misinterpret.

 

[Exodus20]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why are so many Catholics anti-Protestant?"

To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be. R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.

If a "Protestant" quotes a Bible verse(s) to a R.C. member --- they either clam-up/shut-up ( because 90% do not know the Bible ) , or if they are on the internet ( such as the R.C. members on this website ) --- they will quote from some "Church Father" (( just as the E.O. folks do to "prove" their point(s). )).

They avoid the B I B L E , and thus they get upset when "Protestants" quote/recite/Post Bible verses. The "Protestant" believer trusts alone in Christ Jesus for eternal salvation , but the R.C. member has been taught that they must be a member of a group founded in Rome.

Here in the U.S. and Canada the R.C.'s are not the majority. I other places such as Central & South America the R.C.'s are the majority and often Protestant/Bible chapels have been burnt down and ruined by order of the R.C. officials.

That is the short answer to the O.P..

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be. R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.

If a "Protestant" quotes a Bible verse(s) to a R.C. member --- they either clam-up/shut-up ( because 90% do not know the Bible ) , or if they are on the internet ( such as the R.C. members on this website ) --- they will quote from some "Church Father" (( just as the E.O. folks do to "prove" their point(s). )).

They avoid the B I B L E , and thus they get upset when "Protestants" quote/recite/Post Bible verses. The "Protestant" believer trusts alone in Christ Jesus for eternal salvation , but the R.C. member has been taught that they must be a member of a group founded in Rome.

Here in the U.S. and Canada the R.C.'s are not the majority. I other places such as Central & South America the R.C.'s are the majority and often Protestant/Bible chapels have been burnt down and ruined by order of the R.C. officials.

That is the short answer to the O.P..

Yes, some reformed protestants in Canada are close minded and see the Catholic Church as the epitome of evil. However, in Canada, main line protestants and our Catholic brothers and sisters get along quite well, thanks.

There are far greater evils confronting both protestants and Catholics than each other. If one fails to see this; they need to get out more; turn on the TV, turn on the radio; read the paper just to name a few.

 

[thecolorsblend]

To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be. R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.

Not so. The Church believes salvation is generally not available outside the Church. Thus if a non-Catholic Christian goes to heaven, it is because they've been counted as a member of the Church... their actual membership notwithstanding.

And I don't claim to be an expert on this teaching. Even so, my understanding is that it's not necessarily written in stone. It's more of the Church's educated guess. But ultimately God will make that decision.

If a "Protestant" quotes a Bible verse(s) to a R.C. member --- they either clam-up/shut-up ( because 90% do not know the Bible ) , or if they are on the internet ( such as the R.C. members on this website ) --- they will quote from some "Church Father" (( just as the E.O. folks do to "prove" their point(s). )).

Generalize much?

Besides that, what I surmise from your comment there is that you believe in sola Scriptura. And that's fine but don't you think it's a bit unfair to expect a Catholic or EO to discuss topics exclusively on your terms?

They avoid the B I B L E ,

To tie this in with what you wrote earlier, Protestants tend to avoid the Church Fathers... I think because they tend to write from decidedly Catholic viewpoints. It's tough to read much from any of major names from the 1st and 2nd centuries without tripping over a ton of things the Catholic Church teaches to this day.

Very bluntly I think the onus is and has always been on Protestants to justify their ahistorical doctrines rather than on Catholics. But even there, we can point to writings of people trained and taught by St. John himself as evidence of this or that doctrine to establish the historicity of Catholic beliefs.

and thus they get upset when "Protestants" quote/recite/Post Bible verses.

I can't speak for all Catholics everywhere but I at least get annoyed by it because Protestants insist on bizarre double standards in these sorts of discussions. I'm supposed to adhere to a rigidly sola Scriptura viewpoint... and thus my pointing out that the early Church manifestly didn't believe in that doctrine is, of course, a contravention of sola Scriptura, which somehow "invalidates" my point.

Meanwhile, the Protestant is, of course, free to cite writings from Luther, Calvin, Wesley or whoever else when it bolsters the argument in favor of sola Scriptura.

That's just one example, mind you.

The "Protestant" believer trusts alone in Christ Jesus for eternal salvation , but the R.C. member has been taught that they must be a member of a group founded in Rome.

Whaa?

Incidentally, the primacy of Rome is an ancient belief. Of course, to convince you of that (if such is possible), I'd have to quote from the early Church Fathers... which is apparently a no-no.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not so. The Church believes salvation is generally not available outside the Church. Thus if a non-Catholic Christian goes to heaven, it is because they've been counted as a member of the Church... their actual membership notwithstanding.

And I don't claim to be an expert on this teaching. Even so, my understanding is that it's not necessarily written in stone. It's more of the Church's educated guess. But ultimately God will make that decision.

Generalize much?

Besides that, what I surmise from your comment there is that you believe in sola Scriptura. And that's fine but don't you think it's a bit unfair to expect a Catholic or EO to discuss topics exclusively on your terms?

To tie this in with what you wrote earlier, Protestants tend to avoid the Church Fathers... I think because they tend to write from decidedly Catholic viewpoints. It's tough to read much from any of major names from the 1st and 2nd centuries without tripping over a ton of things the Catholic Church teaches to this day.

Very bluntly I think the onus is and has always been on Protestants to justify their ahistorical doctrines rather than on Catholics. But even there, we can point to writings of people trained and taught by St. John himself as evidence of this or that doctrine to establish the historicity of Catholic beliefs.

I can't speak for all Catholics everywhere but I at least get annoyed by it because Protestants insist on bizarre double standards in these sorts of discussions. I'm supposed to adhere to a rigidly sola Scriptura viewpoint... and thus my pointing out that the early Church manifestly didn't believe in that doctrine is, of course, a contravention of sola Scriptura, which somehow "invalidates" my point.

Meanwhile, the Protestant is, of course, free to cite writings from Luther, Calvin, Wesley or whoever else when it bolsters the argument in favor of sola Scriptura.

That's just one example, mind you.

Whaa?

Incidentally, the primacy of Rome is an ancient belief. Of course, to convince you of that (if such is possible), I'd have to quote from the early Church Fathers... which is apparently a no-no.

You said "Not so. The Church believes salvation is generally not available outside the Church. Thus if a non-Catholic Christian goes to heaven, it is because they've been counted as a member of the Church... their actual membership notwithstanding."

Actually, the Catholic Church says that non-Catholics have the possibility of going to heaven. This is contingent upon their having been baptized in a manner acceptable to the Catholic Church and being invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church and its doctrines and dogmas. For those individuals, ignorance is bliss. For such as myself, the Catholic Church holds no hope of salvation. Even those who are invincibly ignorant get the privilege of spending loads more time suffering in Purgatory than the average Catholic.

 

[samcarternx]

God has established "the way things are". THE church is totally spiritual, one body, one mind, one spirit, and ruled by only one sovereign will 24/7. The carnal church is a counterfeit, doing men's best to act like a church and all the conflicts are a result of men striving to establish their own wills.

 

[barryatlake]

samcarternx wrote: "God has established "the way things are". THE church is totally spiritual, one body, one mind, one spirit, and ruled by only one sovereign will 24/7. The carnal church is a counterfeit, doing men's best to act like a church and all the conflicts are a result of men's striving to establish their own wills.''

Only a Catholic Apostolic Church is united in Doctrine, the rest are based on a man-made confusion of varied doctrinal teaching. God is not the inventor of confusion, but those men and women that formed all non- Apostolic Catholic churches certainly are.

Ephesians 4: 3-6

 

[Albion]

To answer the O.P. question: Because R.C. members are told to be.

There probably are many factors that contribute, but I agree that this one ^ is most likely the leading cause.

R.C. 'priests' and officials teach that their group is the only correct group. The R.C. / Vatican group teaches that there is NO salvation outside of the R.C. system.

Yes. It's only a technicality that permits some others to be saved. They are deemed to be Catholics without knowing it, and that makes their salvation square with RC theology.

 

[barryatlake]

Exodus20 along with Albion are both wrong. The Church teaches this: " Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience- those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[Albion]

Exodus20 along with Albion are both wrong. The Church teaches this: " Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience- those too may achieve eternal salvation.

We're not 'wrong.' We were addressing the topic of this thread, unlike yourself, is all.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Unlike the reasoned & cordial discourse of Christian Forums, there is another Catholic forum of anti-Protestant/ anti-Luther.

Otherwise I don't see much anti-protestant/ anti-catholic rhoretic.

 

[Albion]

Unlike the reasoned & cordial discourse of Christian Forums, there is another Catholic forum of anti-Protestant/ anti-Luther.

Otherwise I don't see much anti-protestant/ anti-catholic rhoretic.

This is a difficult question. Identifying "anti" attitudes, that is.

About the only way to gauge it is to observe how many posters claim that their church is the only one that's a real church or say that theirs was uniquely founded by Christ to the exclusion of all others.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, I know you believe what the bible says, so why is it that you do not believe Jesus Christ selected certain men whom he personally trained to govern his Church under one whom He appointed as the "rock'' and with Himself as its Head. He told them what they were to aim at, to make sure they select replacements/successors and how they were to do it, with His help. Years passed and that simple society grew; His organization became more challenged from both inside and outside but weathered all storms regardless of the severity, we have always been able to trace its history through the centuries. To-day only the Catholic Church claims, and is able to prove her claim, to be that society.

 

[Albion]

Albion, I know you believe what the bible says, so why is it that you do not believe Jesus Christ selected certain men whom he personally trained to govern his Church under one whom He appointed as the "rock'' and with Himself as its Head.

I believe just what Jesus said, as recorded in the Bible. He did call Apostles and commissioned them to spread the faith, and he did appoint Peter to reveal the new church to the world--which he did, in a miraculous way, on Pentecost Sunday. Yes, that's fact. The idea that you added to this--that some men hundreds of years later were somehow the inheritors of what Jesus said to Peter and to Peter alone is clearly NOT Scriptural. So I don't accept it. Just as you said, I believe the Bible. I do not believe man's theories when they take liberties with the Bible.

 

[samcarternx]

Albion, I know you believe what the bible says, so why is it that you do not believe Jesus Christ selected certain men whom he personally trained to govern his Church under one whom He appointed as the "rock'' and with Himself as its Head. He told them what they were to aim at, to make sure they select replacements/successors and how they were to do it, with His help. Years passed and that simple society grew; His organization became more challenged from both inside and outside but weathered all storms regardless of the severity, we have always been able to trace its history through the centuries. To-day only the Catholic Church claims, and is able to prove her claim, to be that society.

What if that "rock" that was the foundation of the church was the revelation that He was the Messiah, the son of the Living God? That is the truth and He called Peter a rock because God gave Peter the revelation to declare first. The Greek Orthodox, Coptics, and some other groups were never submitted to Rome as the only legitimate worldwide church. It was always simply "the church at Rome." There are many such myths surrounding the Catholic church that continue to propagate division between various sects within the christian community. There is only one true church, but it is a spiritual entity and the saints are the subjects of God's kingdom of heaven on earth. The divisions seen among christendom are carnal created by men and are not part of the true. Thus the dissention.

 

[barryatlake]

Let's suppose for a moment, there is a Presbyterian, who reads his Bible. From the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. Now, you know this is the most essential of all Christian doctrines, the foundation of all Christianity. From the reading of his Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. And the Presbyterian is a sensible man, an intelligent man, and not a presumptuous man. And he says, "Here is my JW neighbor, who is just as reasonable and intelligent as I am, as honest, as learned, and as prayerful as I am. And from the reading of the Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Christ is not God at all. Now, he says, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and my JW neighbor is wrong. But after all, he says, I may be mistaken! Perhaps I have not the right meaning of the text, and if I am wrong, perhaps he is right after all. But, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and he is wrong."

On what does he believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgment. And what is that? A human opinion, human testimony, and therefore, a human faith. He cannot say positively, I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text. Therefore, he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgment, and what his preacher tells him. Then maybe his preacher is a smart man also. There are many smart JW preachers also, but that proves nothing. It is only human authority, and nothing else, and therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God. Can you see the difference between the Authority that Jesus gave His Church through His Apostles / replacements/ successors and the issue of Peter being the only recipient of the " Keys". Peter has the authority from Jesus to bind.... and loose. That is a very powerful example of a one authoritative church. Jesus never intended His Church to end up like it is today with as many churches as minds [ M. Luther even realized later in life ]. Jesus said: '' Preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all " [ Eph. 4: 3-6 ]

 

[Albion]

Let's suppose for a moment, there is a Presbyterian, who reads his Bible. From the reading of his Bible he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. Now, you know this is the most essential of all Christian doctrines, the foundation of all Christianity. From the reading of his Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is God. And the Presbyterian is a sensible man, an intelligent man, and not a presumptuous man. And he says, "Here is my JW neighbor, who is just as reasonable and intelligent as I am, as honest, as learned, and as prayerful as I am. And from the reading of the Bible, he comes to the conclusion that Christ is not God at all. Now, he says, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and my JW neighbor is wrong. But after all, he says, I may be mistaken! Perhaps I have not the right meaning of the text, and if I am wrong, perhaps he is right after all. But, to the best of my opinion and judgment, I am right and he is wrong."

On what does he believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgment.

Whoa. I was following your thinking up to that point. But what is the logic in simply proclaiming that the man was acting solely on his own opinion (as though you do not do the same)? You haven't indicated any reason why anyone would think that.

You stipulated that he followed the Bible. You follow the Pope and Magisterium. Both decisions are, therefore, informed and carefully considered judgments.

And it's not as though a Presbyterian man has no church or recognizes no guidance other than his own reading of Scripture. His church has an administration, history, seminaries, theologians, creeds and confessions, all of which we can't pretend mean nothing to him but are highly valued by you!

 

[samcarternx]

Agreement with individual or groups of men is not the way of salvation!!! Only agreement with God. Anyone who does and repents of his sins, receives the Holy Spirit, and submits to His will is saved regardless of who is in Rome, London or Chicago.

 

[barryatlake]

sam, Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.

 

[Job8]

Outside of Christ there is no salvation

This is perfect Gospel truth. And this should be sufficient.

... and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.

This is perfect RCC truth but NOT Gospel truth.