Protestant and Catholic theological differences.

[Brian2]

The RCC also has acknowledged, across centuries Mary's apparitions (not all of them).

Maybe these Marian dogmas are either intuitions/revelations.
In the Gospel of James, Joachim promises God to consecrate his child to Him, if he had made Anne's womb fertile. Maybe this means God preserved Mary from original sin...I don't know...

I began to think that the visions of Mary and miracles performed through prayer to her could have been the works of Satan to push the Catholics further away from devotion to Jesus and towards devotion to Mary. Maybe devotion to the RCC, an organisation, and it's teachings instead of to Jesus.
Maybe it is the same with prayers to or through any saint.
The division between Catholic and Protestant seems to have widened since the Reformation imo and the RCC seems to be an agent in it by making dogmas based on tradition which it surely knows the Protestants cannot accept.
Then of course we have those Protestants who have gone so far from the RCC that they see it as Babylon the Great of Revelations etc and say Catholics are not Christian.
Interesting stuff. A strategy by Satan to divide and conquer maybe. Whatever it is there is certainly a lot of distrust and animosity to Rome these days.

 

[Estro Felino]

I began to think that the visions of Mary and miracles performed through prayer to her could have been the works of Satan to push the Catholics further away from devotion to Jesus and towards devotion to Mary. Maybe devotion to the RCC, an organisation, and it's teachings instead of to Jesus.
Maybe it is the same with prayers to or through any saint.
The division between Catholic and Protestant seems to have widened since the Reformation imo and the RCC seems to be an agent in it by making dogmas based on tradition which it surely knows the Protestants cannot accept.
Then of course we have those Protestants who have gone so far from the RCC that they see it as Babylon the Great of Revelations etc and say Catholics are not Christian.
Interesting stuff. A strategy by Satan to divide and conquer maybe. Whatever it is there is certainly a lot of distrust and animosity to Rome these days.

Honestly I don't see these "divisions". There is a great mutual respect between Catholics and Protestants in countries like Switzerland, Germany...where the numbers of the two groups are pretty equivalent.
That said, nobody possesses the absolute truth.
I think both Churches possess truths.

 

[pearl]

Actually we have two Baptisms. The second is called Confirmation and in fact "confirms" the baptism performed after birth.
Normally children reveive this sacrament after the last year of catechism school. 11-12 year old children.

I would not refer to Confirmation as a 'second' baptism. The sacraments of baptism, eucharist and confirmation together complete the 'sacraments of initiation,' into the Church. I believe in the Orthodox churches these sacraments are received at once as infants.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would not refer to Confirmation as a 'second' baptism. The sacraments of baptism, eucharist and confirmation together complete the 'sacraments of initiation,' into the Church. I believe in the Orthodox churches these sacraments are received at once as infants.

Indeed. I didn't use the correct terms. They are two very distinct sacraments.

 

[Deeje]

I’m aware - but having a second baptism doesn’t justify Infant Baptism. It’s a spiritually void and fundamentally flawed practice.

YES. Infant baptism is in no way condoned in the Bible because it requires a person to be fully cognizant of the reasons for baptism in the first place. No infant can undertake such learning and without it, the act of baptism is a only a meaningless ritual. No one can take on that responsibility for you...nor is there a biological age for this to take place. The important thing is to learn what God requires of us and then dedicate one's life to the doing of God's will first in life.....how many undergo baptism or confirmation with any real intent to do that? "Christianity" is not just a label.

Sprinkling water on a baby is not baptism. Full immersion is required because we need to undergo the same kind of baptism that Jesus had....symbolically dying to our own will and rising up to focus on doing God's will.

 

[GardenLady]

I’m aware - but having a second baptism doesn’t justify Infant Baptism. It’s a spiritually void and fundamentally flawed practice.

How very certain you are, and how condemnatory! There are different views and we all see through the glass darkly, as Paul said. I don't think there will be a theology test at the Pearly Gates (metaphorically speaking).

 

[iam1me]

How very certain you are, and how condemnatory! There are different views and we all see through the glass darkly, as Paul said. I don't think there will be a theology test at the Pearly Gates (metaphorically speaking).

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think anyone's going to be condemned because they believe or practice Infant Baptism. It's simply a pointless exercise. It's no more a baptism than if you were to go down to a brothel with a super soaker and start squirting people with Holy Water. It has zero spiritual significance.

And more generally, I don't believe one's doctrine is what we will be judged by either - but by how we lived our lives.

But this is a website for debating religion, so I see no reason not to call out bad practices and theology. I welcome any well thought out rebuttal of course, and am open to changing my mind should anyone present a strong counter argument.

 

[Deeje]

There are different views and we all see through the glass darkly, as Paul said.

But there is nothing dark or unclear about baptism in the Bible. It is something that all Christians are required to undergo once they have personally accepted Christ as their savior. It requires a person to live up to the meaning of their baptism by leading a Christian life from that day on. Having water sprinkled on you as an infant is not even close to what Christian baptism is. No one can make that decision for you.

I don't think there will be a theology test at the Pearly Gates (metaphorically speaking).

Most of humanity will never reach the pearly gates I'm afraid.....God never designed humans to go to heaven, he created us to live forever here on earth, but some rebels got in the way. His purpose for mankind and the earth however, has never changed. (Isaiah 55:11; Revelation 21:2-4)

I for one am looking forward to the coming of the Kingdom so that God's will can "be done on earth as it is in heaven".....isn't this what Jesus taught us to pray for....?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Don't misunderstand me - I don't think anyone's going to be condemned because they believe or practice Infant Baptism. It's simply a pointless exercise. It's no more a baptism than if you were to go down to a brothel with a super soaker and start squirting people with Holy Water. It has zero spiritual significance.

And more generally, I don't believe one's doctrine is what we will be judged by either - but by how we lived our lives.

But this is a website for debating religion, so I see no reason not to call out bad practices and theology. I welcome any well thought out rebuttal of course, and am open to changing my mind should anyone present a strong counter argument.

Nice reply!

 

[GardenLady]

I began to think that the visions of Mary and miracles performed through prayer to her could have been the works of Satan to push the Catholics further away from devotion to Jesus and towards devotion to Mary. Maybe devotion to the RCC, an organisation, and it's teachings instead of to Jesus.
Maybe it is the same with prayers to or through any saint.
The division between Catholic and Protestant seems to have widened since the Reformation imo and the RCC seems to be an agent in it by making dogmas based on tradition which it surely knows the Protestants cannot accept.
.

Regarding the first paragraph quoted above, it's important to understand the concept of the communion of saints that is espoused by Catholic, Orthodox, and so-called "mainstream Protestant" churches -- those that accept the Apostle's Creed. In the communion of saints are the both pilgrims on earth AND those in heaven who are alive in Christ. Asking a saint in heaven to pray for me is no different from asking you to pray for me. Are there abuses? Yes. There are those who speak as though they are praying TO saints instead of asking saints for pray for them. That is wrong. I cannot see the hearts and souls of these people and do not know if it is a case of imprecise language or incorrect intent. For myself, I was always VERY uncomfortable with the Catholic views on purported Marian apparitions. But I will say that, AFAIK, the words ascribed to her generally pointed to Jesus.

Regarding divisions between Protestants and Catholics getting wider...Let me preface my observations by noting that I have left the Catholic church and belong to an ELCA Lutheran parish. Let me also state my belief that the term "Protestant" is so vague as to be useless. The Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian -- so-called "mainstream Protestant" churches are very, very different from the fundamentalist/evangelical churches, especially the thousands of flavors of them in the US. To say "Protestants do this or believe that" is almost always incorrect because Protestant belief and practice is highly diverse. I see a rise in cooperation and non-condemnation between some "mainstream" Protestant churches and the Catholic Church, such as the Catholic-Lutheran "Joint Statement on Justification by Faith." But it is limited. In my Lutheran parish, we do pray in every service for "the unity of all." Sadly, I have seen virulent condemnation on both sides between Catholics and fundamentalists/evangelicals.

 

[pearl]

I was always VERY uncomfortable with the Catholic views on purported Marian apparitions. But I will say that, AFAIK, the words ascribed to her generally pointed to Jesus.

When the Church considers the long history of Marian devotion it rejoices at the continuity of the element of cult which it shows, but it does not bind herself to any particular expression of an individual cultural epoch or to the particular anthropological ideas underlying such expressions. The Church understands that certain outward religious expressions, while perfectly valid in themselves, may be less suitable to men and women of different ages and cultures.
Popular piety has always been interested in extraordinary happenings and events that are not infrequently connected with private revelations. While not confined to Marian piety alone, this phenomenon is particularly involved with "apparitions" and "messages".
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called private revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. And there is no obligation for Catholics to believe them.

Looking at popular devotion with disdain; things like touching statues, making the pilgrimage to a shrine, and walking the way of the Cross are a deep part of faith in the fleshiness of the Word. A little intellectual humility in the presence of the faith of the "unlettered"(Irenaeus) is necessary for us.

I have seen virulent condemnation on both sides between Catholics and fundamentalists/evangelicals

I would clarify between ultra-traditionalist Catholics

 

[Estro Felino]

When the Church considers the long history of Marian devotion it rejoices at the continuity of the element of cult which it shows, but it does not bind herself to any particular expression of an individual cultural epoch or to the particular anthropological ideas underlying such expressions. The Church understands that certain outward religious expressions, while perfectly valid in themselves, may be less suitable to men and women of different ages and cultures.
Popular piety has always been interested in extraordinary happenings and events that are not infrequently connected with private revelations. While not confined to Marian piety alone, this phenomenon is particularly involved with "apparitions" and "messages".
"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called private revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. And there is no obligation for Catholics to believe them.

Looking at popular devotion with disdain; things like touching statues, making the pilgrimage to a shrine, and walking the way of the Cross are a deep part of faith in the fleshiness of the Word. A little intellectual humility in the presence of the faith of the "unlettered"(Irenaeus) is necessary for us.

I fully agree.

 

[pearl]

How very certain you are, and how condemnatory! There are different views and we all see through the glass darkly, as Paul said. I don't think there will be a theology test at the Pearly Gates (metaphorically speaking).

And many differing views as to interpretation of Holy Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian. The Catholic church finds basis for infant baptism in the language of both and from the practices of the early church and how the term 'household' is used in both Covenants. Nowhere does Scripture state - "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith." Or "[So and so] was baptized and -- there being no young children in the household but only such as were of an age and actually believed -- the entire household were baptized with him." Unless specifically excluding children household is inclusive.

And there is the practice of the 2nd century church. The sacrament of Baptism was administered during the night between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. That night they were to spend in vigil, listening to the Scriptures and the instructions.
'And at the hour when the cock crows they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water let the water be pure and flowing. And they shall put off their cloths. And they shall baptize the little children first, And if they can answer for themselves let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.

 

[columbus]

How does that make you feel? Is that an issue for you? Having these concepts fleshed out much later, why was this not done in the first century for example?

Because the 1st century people inventing Christianity hadn't really thought through all the theological implications of their Legend of the Christ. It is quite heretical.

So later people had to do it for them. After they'd adopted the theological system, with all it's logical problems.
Tom

ETA ~Isn't an all male Holy Trinity kinda gay? Of course people added a female figure. Who better than Jesus's Mom?
Better than Magdalene woman. ~

 

[Blake Place]

I wouldn't be surprised if the protestants moved further from the RC when the idea of getting all doctrine from the Bible developed more.
It is interesting to wonder where many of the traditions of the RC church came from.
It is tradition turned into dogma that had to be believed to be a Catholic which is one thing that turned me away from the RC church. It is sort of like adding to the gospel message.
I don't think that one of those traditions is that the mother of Mary was a virgin however. That would mean that Jesus had no blood link to David at all and could not be his descendant.

Both Mary and Joseph had a link to David.

 

[Blake Place]

Because the 1st century people inventing Christianity hadn't really thought through all the theological implications of their Legend of the Christ. It is quite heretical.

So later people had to do it for them. After they'd adopted the theological system, with all it's logical problems.
Tom

ETA ~Isn't an all male Holy Trinity kinda gay? Of course people added a female figure. Who better than Jesus's Mom?
Better than Magdalene woman. ~

The father in heaven has male characteristics, but isn't shown to be a man or woman.
The son is the only person of God to be in human form.
The holy spirit is also not taking up a human form.
So i wouldnt really call it gay, even if it were to be all three men, the relationship dynamic is different from how we would know.

 

[pearl]

I can see a lot of things in scripture that signify Mary as important, but many things in the tradition itself are extra-biblical.

Bur not entirely divorced from it, theologically.
For one who has become so central to the faith as Mary in Catholic faith, there is little said of her through the Christian Scripture. What we do have of her in Christian Scripture is woven entirely of Hebrew Scripture threads including the likeness of the great mothers of Hebrew Scripture; Sarah and Hannah, and the theology of the daughter of Zion and above all the prophets announced the mystery of covenant, the mystery of God's love for Israel. From the Gospel of John the figure of Eve borrowed to interpret Mary. Christian Scripture theologically interprets the figure of Mary from the Hebrew Scripture.; the figure of Eve, the Song of Hannah echoed in Mary's Magnificat. Mary, through her silence and faith incarnates the continuity realized in the poor of Israel, addressed in the Beatitude, blessed are the poor "in Pneuma." Marian dogmas are not found in Christian Scripture, but are understood as embracing the unity of both Testaments through typological interpretation.

 

[Blake Place]

Bur not entirely divorced from it, theologically.
For one who has become so central to the faith as Mary in Catholic faith, there is little said of her through the Christian Scripture. What we do have of her in Christian Scripture is woven entirely of Hebrew Scripture threads including the likeness of the great mothers of Hebrew Scripture; Sarah and Hannah, and the theology of the daughter of Zion and above all the prophets announced the mystery of covenant, the mystery of God's love for Israel. From the Gospel of John the figure of Eve borrowed to interpret Mary. Christian Scripture theologically interprets the figure of Mary from the Hebrew Scripture.; the figure of Eve, the Song of Hannah echoed in Mary's Magnificat. Mary, through her silence and faith incarnates the continuity realized in the poor of Israel, addressed in the Beatitude, blessed are the poor "in Pneuma." Marian dogmas are not found in Christian Scripture, but are understood as embracing the unity of both Testaments through typological interpretation.

But that's just it right, shes just been attributed all feminine roles, all roles considered the ark or the temple, all motherly roles found in scripture.
There are specific times when scripture is clearly referencing itself where it's essentially word for word, like versus in exodus about the ark of the covenant and than with mary's pregnancy. I get those type and shadows, that are specifically targeting things.
However aside from those, which there are plenty, and aside from what scripture already says of mary, which again is impressive.
A lot of the concepts that tradition has told of Mary has been attributed to her by human means. I want to know what God thinks of Mary.
Scripture is the only thing we have of God.

 

[Dogknox20]

YES. Infant baptism is in no way condoned in the Bible because it requires a person to be fully cognizant of the reasons for baptism in the first place. No infant can undertake such learning and without it, the act of baptism is a only a meaningless ritual. No one can take on that responsibility for you...nor is there a biological age for this to take place. The important thing is to learn what God requires of us and then dedicate one's life to the doing of God's will first in life.....how many undergo baptism or confirmation with any real intent to do that? "Christianity" is not just a label.

Sprinkling water on a baby is not baptism. Full immersion is required because we need to undergo the same kind of baptism that Jesus had....symbolically dying to our own will and rising up to focus on doing God's will.

Hello Deeje I hope all is well.... The Church has ALWAYS baptized infants! "Do not stop the infant from coming to Jesus"!
In 1 Cor 1:16 and Acts 16:15,33, baptism of "whole households", with no mention of excluding babies.
Scriptures do NOT say... "Whole households were baptized EXCEPT the infants"! IF..
Deeje if Jesus did not want infants baptized he would have said so!

St Irenaeus (A.D. 189), a disciple of St Polycarp who was taught by St John the Apostle himself! Irenaeus said... "He [Jesus] came to save all through Himself; all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God: infants, and children... He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age". A.D. 189

St Augustine would write: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is... not to be scorned, nor regarded as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic".

St Hippolytus wrote:215 A.D. "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."


Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
QUESTION Deeje How do you stop little children from coming to Jesus? Simple answer is: BY NOT IMMERSING them into Jesus!

THINK: The people of Moses were saved from Egypt and Pharos army by crossing the Red Sea! The water saved them all! These people fleeing from slavery brought their children and INFANTS with them, the Children and Infants were also saved by the waters! The Waters of Baptism IMMERSES us into the Holy Body of Jesus it also IMMERSES the Infants the same!

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[pearl]

I want to know what God thinks of Mary.
Scripture is the only thing we have of God.

Yes, but the 'word' in 'The Word of God' is human.
One Catholic theologian puts it this way, 'from God's "point of view" there is no difference between Mary and Satan. God loves both perfectly. The difference is that Mary is thrilled and Satan hates it.'
Scripture has it Mary said yes.
Revelation is complete but not dead, it does not stagnate, our understanding of Revelation is never complete but moves forward. It is the theology of the authors of Christian Scripture that turned to Hebrew Scripture to answer the questions of Jesus and Mary.

A lot of the concepts that tradition has told of Mary has been attributed to her by human means.

By the same token faith does not stagnate, it is living and constantly developing. Scripture tell us we are promised faith will be guided by the paraclete promised by Jesus. Belief in the person of Mary developed within Scripture itself; for Paul Jesus was simply 'born of a woman', no mention of Mary, and not exactly a positive view of her in Mark, Mt and Lk she is especially blessed, and in Jn, 'woman behold your son', to John, 'behold your mother'.
Neither does the faith of the Church stagnate but is living and moves forward and understood anew. "According to the faith of the Church, the Divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father; the doctrine of Jesus' divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage. Concerning the accounts of Jesus birth, the conception of Jesus is new creation, not begetting by God. God does not become the biological father of Jesus, and neither Scripture nor the theology of the Church has fundamentally ever seen in this narrative or in the event recounted in it the ground for the real divinity of Jesus, his "Divine Sonship."

Neither are the doctrines of the Church frozen in time. There is a difference between what is Catholic dogma and what is popular understanding of that dogma. A doctrine may be phrased "in the changeable conceptions of a given epoch", even if infallibly taught by the Church it is historically conditioned and may have to be reshaped as it is perceived more fully just what issue was at the heart of the divine revelation. and in what way that issue was once formulated represents changeable conceptions. The dogma is not invalidated but developed.