Protestantism and catholicism

[metis]

With all due respect, this is a distinction without a difference.

Whilst it is true that those who have never assented to the Catholic faith cannot be formal heretics, it doesn't change the reality that many key Protestant doctrines are materially heretical. (Which you acknowledge). Word games aside, a sect that teaches heretical things is by that fact a heretical sect. Of course, I agree that since most Protestants have never been in communion with the Church, bludgeoning them with cries of heresy is a pointless, self-righteous exercise.

That said, I don't think there's any obligation to facilitate our wayward 'brothers and sisters'. Once the Church presents the faith the onus is on those to whom it is presented to either accept or reject it. The Church is the ark of salvation and leaning on its edge in no way helps the drowning. Essentially, I don't see what is gained by endless 'dialogue' with those resolutely outside of the faith.

I agree with much of all you said above, but the problem, I have is two-fold. One is an approach that I prefer that's similar to "blame the sin, not the sinner". IOW, not to label the entire denomination as being heretical versus instead focusing on areas whereas they do disagree.

The second area is that when we cover Catholic "dogma", if we put these into a historical context, things are much more complicated. To illustrate what I mean by that, let me use the example of the "Mystery of the Trinity".

Even though there is the Nicene Creed said at mass that would seemingly that this was sort of a slam-dunk decision, the opposite very much was true. There was no agreement in the first centuries of the church on what exactly was the specific relationship between Jesus and God since there were many different ideas that we being put forth. Hitchcock does a masterful job, imo, in his book "History of the Catholic Church" on showing these divisions and how a less-than-comfortable consensus eventually was rendered centuries later.

So, we look at the Trinitarian teaching today and say that any disagreement from that is a "heresy", but the reality is that such disagreements were commonplace in the first centuries of the Church. Yes, the Church did right, imo, on making a decision on what it thought was correct to try and prevent the Church from slipping into the loosey-gooseyness of "anything goes".

I don't know if I'm coming across clear or not, but I do appreciate and respect your comments but my take is maybe a bit different for the reasons above. Contrary to the beleive of many (I'm not implying you), the Church is hardly monolithic, and many people do disagree with some specific teachings, but that doesn't necessarily make them heretical. Where there needs to be much more uniformity, otoh, is with what the Church teaches. I personally knew of a couple of priests that personally had some "reservations" on a couple of teachings, but when they teach they cannot teach what they personally may believe because that's not their role.

Gotta go, and don't have a chance to proof-read this, so I hope I make some sense. .

 

[Anna Therese]

The Church uses the terminology "heretical teachings", not "heretical sects"...

True or false: "Heretical teachings are the fruits of heretical sects"?

 

[metis]

True or false: "Heretical teachings are the fruits of heretical sects"?

Since I don't use the terminology "heretical sects" for reasons I've already made clear, I'm going with "false".

Yes, that terminology used to be used in the "good old days", but I don't hear it at all being used by any of the clergy today, including the most recent popes. It's pretty hard to have ecumenical meetings with other churches, for example, if we call them "heretical sects". Undoubtedly there are some people and probably some clergy who still use that terminology, but I've never run across it personally from any of them.

We need to remember that even though we have some differences of opinions with our Protestant neighbors, there's more agreement on the basics of Christian faith than disagreements. This point was made very clear in the summation of Lutheran/Catholic dialogues, for example.

Even with Jewish/Catholic dialogues, even though there are more differences, Pope Francis has made it clear that we have much in common and need to cooperate. When I was studying the Holocaust in Poland in 1991, we met with clergy from both the CC and Judaism, and their degree of mutual cooperation is significant.

Even here where I live, I've made two presentations at my wife's church dealing with Passover, plus have been involved with Bible study programs whereas I've been helping out because of my background-- all with the priest's blessing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whilst it is true that those who have never assented to the Catholic faith cannot be formal heretics,

*Is* that true?

Assent has never been required to be considered by the Catholic Church to be a requirement to be Christian in their eyes (and therefore under the Catholic Church’s authority and able to engage in heresy). My understanding is that they claim authority over anyone who was baptized in a way that they consider valid.

And in the Catholic view, what constitutes a “valid” baptism is pretty broad; the person administering the baptism doesn’t even have to be Christian; they just have to have the intent to do “what the church does” (I think that’s how they put it).

There are some Christian baptisms they don’t consider valid (for instance, IIRC, some Pentecostals baptize in the name of Jesus only, but the Catholics say a baptism has to be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to be valid), but I think you’ll find that the Catholic Church considers many people heretics who have never even set foot in a Catholic church.

 

[tayla]

As far as Western Christianity goes, yes. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not Protestants.

I've heard some Orthodox say they *are* Protestants.

 

[Glaurung]

Assent has never been required to be considered by the Catholic Church to be a requirement to be Christian in their eyes (and therefore under the Catholic Church’s authority and able to engage in heresy). My understanding is that they claim authority over anyone who was baptized in a way that they consider valid.

In my understanding, anyone who has received a valid trinitarian baptism is a Christian. Since the Catholic Church holds that it alone is the Church, all Christians are obligated to enter in full communion with her. Anyone who willfully remains outside the Church is in rebellion against Christ and is therefore outside the means of salvation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

Now Protestantism is a heresy and therefore Protestants are always heretics in the material sense. That is, Protestants espouse doctrines that are objectively contrary to the Catholic faith and by that fact alone are outside of the visible Church. However, as very few Protestants were ever Catholic those said Protestants cannot be canonically guilty of formal heresy. That is they're not necessarily culpable for the fact that their beliefs are heretical because just like most Catholics, most Protestants have been bequeathed their various creeds by circumstances in no way their own doing. In other words, most Protestants are in ignorance of the true faith, not in willful rebellion against it.

Formal heresy is a culpable rejection or modification of any article of faith binding on all Christians. How many Protestants (who have never held the Catholic faith) are in culpable heresy is for God to judge.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've heard some Orthodox say they *are* Protestants.

No...just think that the official denomination is: Orthodox Catholic Church...
So...absolutely not a "heretical Church", some say it's schismatic.

 

[sojourner]

What Protestantism and Catholicism both have in common:
-Believe in the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ.
-Derived from medieval Latin Christianity.
-Believe in the Bible as the inspired Word of God.
-Worship as a community in a church on Sunday (a couple smaller Protestant groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists are an exception).
-Believe in Jesus Christ as God, Lord and Savior (a couple smaller Protestant groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians are an exception).
-Believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead to give us new life.
-Have baptism and Holy Communion.
-Believe that God is Trinity: Three Persons in one God (a couple smaller Protestant groups believe otherwise).
-Believe that God saves us.
-Reject idolatry.
-Celebrate important holidays like Christmas, Easter and Pentecost (the Jehovah's Witnesses are an exception).
-Established ranks of clergy, either in a threefold form of deacons+priests+bishops (like with Catholics and older forms of Protestantism), or in the form of having pastors/ministers belonging to individual congregations who may or may not be organized into larger regional church groups which have a bishop or president as their head.

What is unique to Catholics:
-Along with the Bible, Catholics believe in the authority of Holy Tradition, or the teachings of the Apostles taught to their students that didn't get written down in the New Testament. Holy Tradition is both commentary on how to understand the Bible, and also how a Christian should live.
-A Catholic is defined as someone who believes in all the teachings of the Catholic Church and who submits to the authority of the Roman Pope.
-There's not just the Roman Catholic Church, but there are also about 22 other Eastern Catholic Churches with unique traditions and history that developed alongside and separate from Western Roman Christianity.
-Believe that the Pope is infallible (i.e. cannot be wrong) when acting in his official capacity as a teacher of faith and morals.
-Believe that the Pope is the supreme head of the Church. Nothing has more authority than the Pope, not even a council held by the entire rest of the Church.
-Believe in Purgatory (a place where you go after you die to be purged of the stain of sin before you can enter Heaven).
-Giving respect (not worship) to Mary and the Saints.
-Asking for the prayers of Mary and the Saints.
-Seven sacraments/important rituals are counted which specially bestow God's blessing for a specific purpose: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, Holy Communion, marriage, ordination, Anointing of the Sick, and Confession.
-We are saved by our faith in God, and this faith consists of both believing and doing good works.
-The Catholic Church as an institution goes back to the very beginning of Christianity, along with the Orthodox Churches (who are not Catholic, but are kind of similar in a lot of ways to the Catholics).
-Catholics have monastic life--monks, nuns, etc.

What is unique to Protestants:
-Belief in the authority of the Bible alone (or the Bible primarily). Holy Tradition is either irrelevant, secondary to the Bible, only useful insofar as it conforms to the Bible, or flat-out wrong, depending on your Protestant tradition.
-Do not believe that any one person is infallible, but that the Holy Spirit can guide anyone to understanding the Bible correctly.
-Belief that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone. Good works are not a part of faith, but merely the results of it.
-While many of the older Protestant groups still believe in Mary and the Saints, Protestants as a whole don't ask for the prayers of Mary or the Saints.
-No Pope. The Pope is seen as having overstepped his bounds and acquired a kind of power in the Catholic Church that Jesus would have never approved of.
-Some Protestants (the Calvinists) believe in predestination, i.e. that God has foreordained some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell, and we cannot change that fate. Other Protestants don't believe this, and neither do the Catholics.
-Some Protestants will ordain women as clergy, and have women pastors, women priests, women bishops, etc.
-Some Protestants will ordain openly LGBT people as clergy.
-Protestant groups were all founded around or after 1517 AD.
-Many Protestants don't have any super-formal and detailed worship service like the Catholic Mass, but have more spontaneous worship without a lot of prescribed prayers, gestures and words to be said at certain points in the service.

Wow. This is off in so many ways, and way too simplistic, focusing more on praxis rather than on theological particulars.

 

[outlawState]

What is unique to Protestants:
-Some Protestants will ordain women as clergy, and have women pastors, women priests, women bishops, etc.
-Some Protestants will ordain openly LGBT people as clergy.
-Protestant groups were all founded around or after 1517 AD.

I take issue with three of the above.

-Some Protestants will ordain women as clergy, and have women pastors, women priests, women bishops, etc.

What this does is conflate protestantism with antinomianism. Protestantism is not to be confounded with those groups harboring semi-religious pretensions, but whose central tenet is rejection of OT law, by which I mean the moral law, which enforces a patriarchy. There are many non-catholic groups who are outright heretical in the eyes of any right-thinking biblical literalist; and to describe them as Protestant is really to defame Protestantism as an intellectual force against the usurpations of Catholicism, by extending it to those non-intellectually inclined rebels against biblical morality.

-Some Protestants will ordain openly LGBT people as clergy.

This is not an integral feature of protestantism, nor any part of true protestantism, but a cause of why protestantism arose in the first place. Some popes were known to be gay, many more sexually immoral. The Catholic church was perceived as full of the openly sexually immoral throughout much of its existence, especially in 10th century when the immoral women Theodora and Marozia exercised considerable power over Rome and the church. Luther saw the immorality of the Roman church when he visited Rome in 16th century, Luther said if there be a hell Rome is built over it. Same with Servetus. It was Rome itself that convinced these formerly keen Catholics that the papacy was the mother of harlots. Even to this day, it is notorious that Catholics openly ordain gay priests, and many of them are gay.

-Protestant groups were all founded around or after 1517 AD.

Nonsense. There were many protestant groups that preceded Luther, including Hussites, Lollards, Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils.

 

[exchemist]

In a nutshell?

Protestantism - various heretical sects each with opposing heretical views on God, the Bible, Salvation.
Catholicism - The true faith of Jesus Christ, the practice of said faith, and the only Church established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind.

Oh come off it, Anna Therese. Relax a bit.

Does it really make any sense in the modern world, knowing what we know about the history of all the churches, to stigmatise our Protestant brethren as "heretics"? This is the way people thought at the time of the Inquisition. A moment's glance at a history of the church will show there has been a multitude of theological differences throughout history, starting with the Diophysites and Mono- or Mia-physites or even perhaps before.

In view of both this and the good that Luther's Reformation did to the corruption and bad practice in the Catholic church of the time, can we not now look for the insights we can take from - at least the more sensible of - these strands of Christianity, rather than dismissing them all?

I have other sheep that are not of this fold.......or something.....

 

[Shiranui117]

I take issue with three of the above.

-Some Protestants will ordain women as clergy, and have women pastors, women priests, women bishops, etc.

What this does is conflate protestantism with antinomianism.

Not at all. You're making a value judgement about the idea of having women clergy. I'm stating a simple observable fact. Nowhere did I say that liberal Protestants were antinomian or without any moral compass just because they have women clergy.

Protestantism is not to be confounded with those groups harboring semi-religious pretensions, but whose central tenet is rejection of OT law, by which I mean the moral law, which enforces a patriarchy. There are many non-catholic groups who are outright heretical in the eyes of any right-thinking biblical literalist; and to describe them as Protestant is really to defame Protestantism as an intellectual force against the usurpations of Catholicism, by extending it to those non-intellectually inclined rebels against biblical morality.

Dude chill, this isn't about whose religion is right or wrong, this is just about giving simple answers to the simple question of what the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism are. Whether you choose to classify liberal Protestant denominations as properly Protestant is irrelevant to the discussion, especially since liberal Protestants identify themselves as Protestants and otherwise share all the same core beliefs that define Protestantism as a broader movement.

-Some Protestants will ordain openly LGBT people as clergy.

This is not an integral feature of protestantism, nor any part of true protestantism, but a cause of why protestantism arose in the first place. Some popes were known to be gay, many more sexually immoral. The Catholic church was perceived as full of the openly sexually immoral throughout much of its existence, especially in 10th century when the immoral women Theodora and Marozia exercised considerable power over Rome and the church. Luther saw the immorality of the Roman church when he visited Rome in 16th century, Luther said if there be a hell Rome is built over it. Same with Servetus. It was Rome itself that convinced these formerly keen Catholics that the papacy was the mother of harlots. Even to this day, it is notorious that Catholics openly ordain gay priests, and many of them are gay.

This isn't about dragging out other churches' dirty laundry. I'm not slamming Protestant denominations who ordain openly LGBT people, I'm stating a simple fact. This is straight-up about what the Catholic Church teaches and what various Protestant groups teach. The Catholic Church does not permit anyone to be a clergyman who wishes to engage in homosexual acts, be in a homosexual relationship, or transition to the opposite gender/sex (systematic failure of leadership and enforcement leading to dozens of contrary cases is another problem). Many Protestant denominations, however, are increasingly allowing for openly gay, lesbian and transgender ministers/clergy, including the ELCA, the Anglican Communion, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, United Methodists, and many of the larger Protestant bodies in the West.

-Protestant groups were all founded around or after 1517 AD.

Nonsense. There were many protestant groups that preceded Luther, including Hussites, Lollards, Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils.

-The Albigenses weren't Protestant as far as anyone can tell. They more resembled the Gnostics than anything.
-The Bogomils were offshoots from the Orthodox, and they were also far, far closer to Gnostics than anything in Protestantism today.
-I'm not factoring in now-dead groups founded in the 1300's or 1400's like the Waldenses or Hussites (the founding dates of which are rather close to 1517 on Christian timescales anyway).


I didn't know the Lollards were a thing, so thanks for teaching me something.

 

[Shiranui117]

Wow. This is off in so many ways, and way too simplistic, focusing more on praxis rather than on theological particulars.

There's a reason I kept it simplistic and focusing on praxis. Most people aren't prepared to go into theological particulars. Anyone who asks about the differences between "Protestants" and Catholics, as if Protestants are some cohesive whole, is probably in need of an initial primer to get their bearings before someone slams them over the head with an encyclopedia the likes of Philip Schaff's volumes or New Advent.

 

[exchemist]

I take issue with three of the above.

-Some Protestants will ordain women as clergy, and have women pastors, women priests, women bishops, etc.

What this does is conflate protestantism with antinomianism. Protestantism is not to be confounded with those groups harboring semi-religious pretensions, but whose central tenet is rejection of OT law, by which I mean the moral law, which enforces a patriarchy. There are many non-catholic groups who are outright heretical in the eyes of any right-thinking biblical literalist; and to describe them as Protestant is really to defame Protestantism as an intellectual force against the usurpations of Catholicism, by extending it to those non-intellectually inclined rebels against biblical morality.

-Some Protestants will ordain openly LGBT people as clergy.

This is not an integral feature of protestantism, nor any part of true protestantism, but a cause of why protestantism arose in the first place. Some popes were known to be gay, many more sexually immoral. The Catholic church was perceived as full of the openly sexually immoral throughout much of its existence, especially in 10th century when the immoral women Theodora and Marozia exercised considerable power over Rome and the church. Luther saw the immorality of the Roman church when he visited Rome in 16th century, Luther said if there be a hell Rome is built over it. Same with Servetus. It was Rome itself that convinced these formerly keen Catholics that the papacy was the mother of harlots. Even to this day, it is notorious that Catholics openly ordain gay priests, and many of them are gay.

-Protestant groups were all founded around or after 1517 AD.

Nonsense. There were many protestant groups that preceded Luther, including Hussites, Lollards, Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils.

A right-thinking biblical literalist?

I think I need to have a lie down.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does it really make any sense in the modern world, knowing what we know about the history of all the churches, to stigmatise our Protestant brethren as "heretics"?

Yes: one of the foundational principles of the Catholic Church is that their doctrine was laid out by Christ and has not changes since then.

I recognize that Catholic doctrine has changed significantly over the ages, but major shifts all at once make it untenable to even pretend that permanence of doctrine is a thing.

 

[exchemist]

Yes: one of the foundational principles of the Catholic Church is that their doctrine was laid out by Christ and has not changes since then.

I recognize that Catholic doctrine has changed significantly over the ages, but major shifts all at once make it untenable to even pretend that permanence of doctrine is a thing.

Oh I know that of course. I'm not trying to persuade the pope here. After all it has taken my church 400 years to concede officially that putting Galileo under house arrest was a silly thing to have done. It is staring them in the face that they need to appoint women priests, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

But, looking at it from outside for a moment, everyone thinks it is they who have the Truth and all the others have got it wrong. That goes not just for Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, and the huge multiplicity of Protestant denominations, but for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc etc. (There is a Protestant on this thread fulminating against the iniquities of "Rome".)

It was when I lived for a while in the Middle East, heard exegesis of the Koran and visited the temples in Thailand, with their eerily familiar sense (to a Catholic) of tradition, ritual and calm, that this struck me with full force. How likely is it, I began to think, given the history of human affairs and human nature, that one denomination (mine) has got it all right and not any of the others? A tad arrogant? Perhaps?

It seems to me we will not get anywhere nowadays by talking of "heresies". We certainly won't convince anyone but the already convinced. And what will that achieve?

 

[outlawState]

(There is a Protestant on this thread fulminating against the iniquities of "Rome".)

fulminating against Rome? Why should I as I don't believe in Rome? 2nd generation protestants don't bother with Rome. Anyway, you don't even need to go to Rome. Italy is Catholic and Italy is a brothel. Italy is the only country I have ever been too where the prostitutes just sit by the roadside as you drive by - hordes of them everywhere. They number in the tens of thousands, if not more.

I'd quite like to see some Catholics fulminating against Rome actually.

"Vatican-owned properties in Rome are operating as seedy saunas and massage parlours where priests pay for sex, according to the latest in a series of leaked reports to embarrass the Church."

 

[exchemist]

fulminating against Rome? Why should I as I don't believe in Rome? 2nd generation protestants don't bother with Rome. Anyway, you don't even need to go to Rome. Italy is Catholic and Italy is a brothel. Italy is the only country I have ever been too where the prostitutes just sit by the roadside as you drive by - hordes of them everywhere. They number in the tens of thousands, if not more.

I'd quite like to see some Catholics fulminating against Rome actually.

"Vatican-owned properties in Rome are operating as seedy saunas and massage parlours where priests pay for sex, according to the latest in a series of leaked reports to embarrass the Church."

So not fulminating at all, then, just thoughtful, calm and balanced. I'm glad that's settled.

Actually I love Italy. The scenery, the climate, the history, the food, the wine (in Piedmont especially). I loved the history of Rome too when I visited. The cradle of Western civilisation in so many ways.

 

[Shiranui117]

fulminating against Rome? Why should I as I don't believe in Rome? 2nd generation protestants don't bother with Rome. Anyway, you don't even need to go to Rome. Italy is Catholic and Italy is a brothel. Italy is the only country I have ever been too where the prostitutes just sit by the roadside as you drive by - hordes of them everywhere. They number in the tens of thousands, if not more.

I'd quite like to see some Catholics fulminating against Rome actually.

"Vatican-owned properties in Rome are operating as seedy saunas and massage parlours where priests pay for sex, according to the latest in a series of leaked reports to embarrass the Church."

You seem to have a very strong prejudice of "Catholic=morally bankrupt and root of all evil in the world". The Netherlands and Scandinavia allow for prostitution as well. Heck, most of the traditionally Protestant countries in Europe are increasingly secular. Each Christian denomination is facing its own set of difficulties nowadays in modern society as people take the religion less seriously and start to move away from it.

 

[metis]

Actually I love Italy.

Ditto. I believe I mentioned to ya before that my wife's from Sicily, and I loved the time we spent there with her relatives. We also toured the rest of the country back in 2001, and my favorite area is the Amalfi Coast.

 

[metis]

Italy is Catholic and Italy is a brothel. Italy is the only country I have ever been too where the prostitutes just sit by the roadside as you drive by - hordes of them everywhere. They number in the tens of thousands, if not more.

Apparently you've never been to the Red Light District in Amsterdam, but I would never be so dishonest as to call the Netherlands or Amsterdam a "brothel". Your stereotypes are just so utterly pathetic and dishonest as they are a form of lying while demeaning others.