Comparing Protestantism and Catholicism

[HeidiKC]

Wow, That is a shame that your RCIA team is not welcoming questions. Questions are part of the process. I would have a sit-down with the pastor of this parish to not only ask the questions you seek answers to, but also to let him know that they are NOT being answered in RCIA.

 

:iagree:

[HeidiKC]

There may be Catholics who are badly catechized and think that is what they believe but it is not what the church teaches by any means.

 

:iagree: This seems to happen ALL the time! Check the catechism or other reliable source, not your Catholic friend who may or may not have her facts straight (unfortunately).

[knit247]

Oh my goodness! I just woke up and saw all of the posts! TY all so much for taking the time to write. I will get back to these ASAP. It's 7:40 here and if I don't get my children up and going right now it's gonna' be a looong day!

[knit247]

Again, ty all so very much for taking the time to post. The knowledge to be found on these boards (in so may areas) is astounding to me.

 

To those who wrote about my RCIA class - it has been brought to the attention of the Priest, but nothing has changed. I wonder if it’s because we are a military parish - I know that it is a lot for one priest to handle. Again, I am not bashing the RCIA leader - I am just not sure that he makes the best teacher for a group of people just starting their journey.

 

Check out this link...

 

No, thank you. :001_rolleyes:

 

To understand your questions about Protestantism, you're really going to have to read the history of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli. Read their own words...

Have you checked out the conversion stories at Why I'm Catholic? ...They will answer a lot of your questions in a way that you may feel more connected to.

 

TY for the links! The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know. But, I will admit that I have allowed myself to become overwhelmed to the point that I stopped reading much of anything. I am always amazed at the amount of info you know, Mouse. Oh, and I have checked out some of the conversion stories, but know that there are also ones of Catholic-Protestant and that just confuses me more!

 

It started with coming to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura has caused about 40,000 denominations. Which is in itself against what the bible says. (Father Luther didn't plan on his nailed thesis' going the way it did, and at some points he deeply regretted it...

 

The Catholic church never abandoned the Bible. And certainly not in favor of traditions of man. The Catholic church differentiates between Sacred Tradition and traditions of man. Sacred Tradition is that from which the Sacred Scriptures were written.

 

Dei Verbum (Latin meaning "The Word of God") is a Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation. It says, 'The relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: “...Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

 

Parrot and Mouse, tradition is not a sticking point for me at all - yea, something I am sure about :D I can absolutely see how it fits in with the Bible.

 

AFA the OP, some things you just have to step out on faith. Not everything has to click all at once.

 

TY. I guess that I am looking for 100% absolute “proof†one way or another. In this whole process, I seem to have forgotten that up until this point I have had a great deal of faith - I just need to find it again.

 

You know, there is no rule that says joining the Catholic Church, or any other, has to be this Easter. Discernment is important and should not be rushed...

 

I'm afraid I don't have a general resource to suggest, but I hope this is somewhat helpful.

 

Your post was amazingly helpful - ty so much for taking the time to write. I am still not sure if I can join the Church this Easter. We learned that in the early days of the Church, it was common for Catechumens to take years studying before they joined. I certainly need to study more and also determine my husband’s thoughts on the whole subject. At this point I am not wholly sure that I can join a church without the rest of my family. Of course then I think I should and have faith that they will follow :seeya:

 

...I know for me it was difficult to wrap my theological brain around the fact that the RC did reform itself. It makes me wonder if Luther would write his 95 thesis against the RC of today. Just something I think about every once in awhile. :D

 

Good point!

 

I highly recommend the book How to Go from Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic in Ninety-Five Difficult Steps. It is so thought-provoking!

 

http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Committed-Catholic-Ninety-Five-Difficult/dp/1610970330/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329085654&sr=8-1

 

OK - now I am intrigued. It’s on my short-list and after reading all of the other posts on it, I have a feeling it will be downloaded instead of waiting for the book!

 

OP, this probably isn't at all what you are looking for. And I sure don't mean to discourage learning and study...

 

But one way to look at it is not that one denomination is "rightâ€... Instead of "right", I believe in "right for me" or "right for me at this time". I even believe that God embraces the denominations as a couple of hundred different ways to encourage relationship.

 

I think that this is where I am really struggling right now. And as I said, as much as I believe in the Catholic Church being the place for me, I do not think that I will be eternally punished if I don’t join. It is very hard for me to think about joining when my husband does not want to join himself - nor does he want the girls to attend at this point. He is fully supportive of me, but I’m just not sure how “right†it is for me to do that.

 

God does not want you to be anxious for anything, do not let this become your decision without Him guiding you, ask for Him to reveal to you the way you should go...he never fails.

...seek His perfect will and ou will do well.

 

Why do I always forget that??? Thanks for the reminder!

[Parrothead]

 

TY. I guess that I am looking for 100% absolute “proof†one way or another. In this whole process, I seem to have forgotten that up until this point I have had a great deal of faith - I just need to find it again.

 

 

 

 

Pray. Ask for it back. :grouphug:

[Bluegoat]

Just pointing out that the RCC did reform itself on the abuse of indulgences. ;)

 

(I'm sure you know) It had to do with the lack of communication within the church in the Medieval ages (feudalism and taxing travelers brought communication within the church to a halt, and the people ended up electing Bishops instead of being appointed by the Pope, then the bishops later were being appointed by the monarchy, which brought a whole host of problems/abuses).

 

Well, yes, they refoormed what they considered to be the abusive use o them, selling them for money. This doesn't really address the theological issue with indulgences themselves from the Reformer's perspective or that of the Eastern Church - the idea of temporal punishment of sin, the Treasury of Merit, etc.

[justamouse]

Well, yes, they refoormed what they considered to be the abusive use o them, selling them for money. This doesn't really address the theological issue with indulgences themselves from the Reformer's perspective or that of the Eastern Church - the idea of temporal punishment of sin, the Treasury of Merit, etc.

 

Indulgences and those subjects, next to Mary and Purgatory are the most misunderstood of all.

 

You can't read the word 'indulgence' within the context of the catechisim as though you were giving a whining child a candy. In all actuality, Protestants enact indulgences, Catholics just put a name on them. You pray, read the bible, attend church, and go to bible studies, no? You pray for your leaders, join your prayers with them, and pray for things as a church for the good of your community? Those are good things? They are encouraged, so that your Christian walk is strengthened? So that you become more Christlike and holy?

 

Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.

 

 

 

This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

From a Primer on Indulgences.

 

I think this part better explains-from the same link.

 

Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven

 

 

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

 

 

 

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

 

 

 

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

 

 

 

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

 

 

 

Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church

 

 

God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

 

 

[snip]

 

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

 

 

 

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

 

 

 

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

 

 

 

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.

 

 

 

So that people don't think 'penance' is about flogging yourself through the town square, one of my penances was to say prayers, and to say something nice to my son (with whom I had had a very strained relationship, and which caused a lot of familial friction). To think that was easy for me at the time, would be very, very wrong. He and I were seething at eachother. Father knew that that behavior had to be broken, and gave me, the parent (rightfully so) the responsibility of turning the other cheek and showing love. So for me, at the time, it was asking me to move a mountain. But, his penance was right and good and enacted a whole dynamic change within our family. If I hadn't humbled myself to the penance, I doubt my son and I would be speaking today.

Edited February 13, 2012 by justamouse

[Bluegoat]

Indulgences and those subjects, next to Mary and Purgatory are the most misunderstood of all.

 

You can't read the word 'indulgence' within the context of the catechisim as though you were giving a whining child a candy. In all actuality, Protestants enact indulgences, Catholics just put a name on them. You pray, read the bible, attend church, and go to bible studies, no? You pray for your leaders, join your prayers with them, and pray for things as a church for the good of your community? Those are good things? They are encouraged, so that your Christian walk is strengthened? So that you become more Christlike and holy?

 

From a Primer on Indulgences.

 

I think this part better explains-from the same link.

 

 

 

 

 

So that people don't think 'penance' is about flogging yourself through the town square, one of my penances was to say prayers, and to say something nice to my son (with whom I had had a very strained relationship, and which caused a lot of familial friction). To think that was easy for me at the time, would be very, very wrong. He and I were seething at eachother. Father knew that that behavior had to be broken, and gave me, the parent (rightfully so) the responsibility of turning the other cheek and showing love. So for me, at the time, it was asking me to move a mountain. But, his penance was right and good and enacted a whole dynamic change within our family. If I hadn't humbled myself to the penance, I doubt my son and I would be speaking today.

 

Yes, I understand how the Catholic Church talks about penance and indulgences. I also think the modern CCC has glossed indulgences over significantly. Indulgences are certainly not the same as saying that prayer is effectual which is, as far as I know, believed by every Christian group. And penance is not just about setting the situation right or even improving your spiritual state.

 

But it would still have been totally unacceptable to the Reformers, or to the OC.

 

There is a tendency in some Catholic apologetics to say that the CC reformed the use of indulgences as if this changes the basic problem the rest of the Christian world has with their theological structures. But it doesn't, and presenting it as if it has been cleared up is misleading to those who don't know any better.

[Tea Time]

Again, ty all so very much for taking the time to post. The knowledge to be found on these boards (in so may areas) is astounding to me.

 

To those who wrote about my RCIA class - it has been brought to the attention of the Priest, but nothing has changed. I wonder if it’s because we are a military parish - I know that it is a lot for one priest to handle. Again, I am not bashing the RCIA leader - I am just not sure that he makes the best teacher for a group of people just starting their journey.

We had a military parish, and our RCIA leader was very good, but he may have been not so good from the perspective of a newcomer... we had been considering our move to the Catholic Church for a decade! It is very hard for RCIA leaders, I guess, to know how to approach the variety of people they serve.

 

Your post was amazingly helpful - ty so much for taking the time to write. I am still not sure if I can join the Church this Easter. We learned that in the early days of the Church, it was common for Catechumens to take years studying before they joined. I certainly need to study more and also determine my husband’s thoughts on the whole subject. At this point I am not wholly sure that I can join a church without the rest of my family. Of course then I think I should and have faith that they will follow :seeya:

I could not go by myself, and that is why it took 10 years. We had to watch the Episcopal Church swirl down the drain of relativity, lacking a coherent authority, in order to see where all that led. What a painful, painful process. But when we all were received together, it felt right. Still, knowing what I know now, I do not know I if I would do it the same way again. Very tough stuff. Either way you will have to have faith. It helped me to know that the Church is a patient mother. Many things happen in "Church" time that are far, far slower than I often want to see. Your journey can be like that. Take your time. Some very dear friends of ours, who were with us on part of that journey, will be received into the Church this Easter. I am so blessed by that. Patience in these things pays. :001_smile:

[justamouse]

Yes, I understand how the Catholic Church talks about penance and indulgences. I also think the modern CCC has glossed indulgences over significantly. Indulgences are certainly not the same as saying that prayer is effectual which is, as far as I know, believed by every Christian group. And penance is not just about setting the situation right or even improving your spiritual state.

 

But it would still have been totally unacceptable to the Reformers, or to the OC.

 

There is a tendency in some Catholic apologetics to say that the CC reformed the use of indulgences as if this changes the basic problem the rest of the Christian world has with their theological structures. But it doesn't, and presenting it as if it has been cleared up is misleading to those who don't know any better.

 

You're right, they're lying in hopes to deceive everyone and lure them in.

 

Did you read and try and understand the pov of the two articles linked? Look, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But at that point it's not a discussion, you've already made up your mind. For years I believed just like you. I get it.

[Tea Time]

So that people don't think 'penance' is about flogging yourself through the town square, one of my penances was to say prayers, and to say something nice to my son (with whom I had had a very strained relationship, and which caused a lot of familial friction). To think that was easy for me at the time, would be very, very wrong. He and I were seething at eachother. Father knew that that behavior had to be broken, and gave me, the parent (rightfully so) the responsibility of turning the other cheek and showing love. So for me, at the time, it was asking me to move a mountain. But, his penance was right and good and enacted a whole dynamic change within our family. If I hadn't humbled myself to the penance, I doubt my son and I would be speaking today.

 

What a beautiful explanation from your own experience! Sometimes one has to see how these things work in reality to grasp them. The Catholic Church can be obnoxious in how boldly it steps out there and defines things. To define is to post a flag in the earth, and that is bound to draw fire from all sides. But glossing over it and just doing the same thing by "feeling" has risks as well. Tough roads to walk, either way.

[iamrachelle]

The major thrust of the Reformation is that the Roman Catholic Church had abandoned the Bible in favor of the traditions of man. One of the major tenets of the Protestant Reformation is sola scritura (scripture alone). Man's word or traditions does not have any biblical authority at all.

 

:iagree:This. Exactly.

[WIS0320]

:iagree:This. Exactly.

 

I encourage you to go and actually learn about how and why the Bible was originally compiled.

Edited February 13, 2012 by drexel

[i.love.lucy]

Where can I find explanations/supporting statements for the Protestant "side"?

 

Well, since you have had numerous Catholics pointing you to Catholic links and sources, but your original question was regarding knowledge from the Protestant side, I thought I would point you to this article that I also liked that explained some of the reasons some Protestants give for converting to Catholicism, and some things to think through.

 

I also love John MacArthur, think he is a very Godly man and very, very wise in his theological teaching. Again, from a Protestant perspective. He has some things to say about Catholicism.

 

I'm sure the tomatoes will be thrown at me, but the OP asked for a Protestant viewpoint, so there it is.

[justamouse]

Well, since you have had numerous Catholics pointing you to Catholic links and sources, but your original question was regarding knowledge from the Protestant side, I thought I would point you to this article that I also liked that explained some of the reasons some Protestants give for converting to Catholicism, and some things to think through.

 

I also love John MacArthur, think he is a very Godly man and very, very wise in his theological teaching. Again, from a Protestant perspective. He has some things to say about Catholicism.

 

I'm sure the tomatoes will be thrown at me, but the OP asked for a Protestant viewpoint, so there it is.

 

I don't think anyone minds an opposing view, and if a person doesn't want to join the RCC for whatever reason, God bless them on their journey. But misinterpreting Catholic teaching then saying it's Truth is not fair to either side. If they want to make the decision, let them be fully and truthfully informed.

Edited February 13, 2012 by justamouse

[Bluegoat]

You're right, they're lying in hopes to deceive everyone and lure them in.

 

Did you read and try and understand the pov of the two articles linked? Look, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But at that point it's not a discussion, you've already made up your mind. For years I believed just like you. I get it.

 

I think that just like some who try to convince people to join Protestant groups, there are people who are so excited they have the answer they are willing to fudge things a bit to make it sound appealing. And this can be done with total sincerity and good will.

 

More often, these people don't actually know that the information is wrong or incomplete themselves, and are still sincere.

 

None of that changes that saying it is misleading to the person trying to figure it all out. The Reformers difficulties with the theology of indulgences were not based only on their abuse - though that was a big issue - but with the theology itself.

 

Yes, I read your links, I am fairly well versed in Catholic theology and I've spent significant time trying to understand it - I have some background in theology. I'm not really even a protestant theologically speaking - I am not a huge fan of many aspects of Reformation theology. Am I sure of my position? Well, fairly, which is why I hold it and not another, though in this life I suppose 100% certainty is impossible. I am guessing you feel fairly certain of your opinion as well. i would hope it is still possible to have discussion under those conditions.

[justamouse]

I think that just like some who try to convince people to join Protestant groups, there are people who are so excited they have the answer they are willing to fudge things a bit to make it sound appealing. And this can be done with total sincerity and good will.

 

More often, these people don't actually know that the information is wrong or incomplete themselves, and are still sincere.

 

None of that changes that saying it is misleading to the person trying to figure it all out. The Reformers difficulties with the theology of indulgences were not based only on their abuse - though that was a big issue - but with the theology itself.

 

Yes, I read your links, I am fairly well versed in Catholic theology and I've spent significant time trying to understand it - I have some background in theology. I'm not really even a protestant theologically speaking - I am not a huge fan of many aspects of Reformation theology. Am I sure of my position? Well, fairly, which is why I hold it and not another, though in this life I suppose 100% certainty is impossible. I am guessing you feel fairly certain of your opinion as well. i would hope it is still possible to have discussion under those conditions.

 

I really can't comprehend how you can fudge it when you get it from the Catechism, and sites like Catholic Answers. If I were giving MY opinion, then yes, you could accuse me of that, but I specifically went to the back and white of teaching so NO personal interpretation would get in the way.

 

If your accusation is that the whole of the Catholic church is lying--well, that is your prerogative.

[Bluegoat]

I really can't comprehend how you can fudge it when you get it from the Catechism, and sites like Catholic Answers. If I were giving MY opinion, then yes, you could accuse me of that, but I specifically went to the back and white of teaching so NO personal interpretation would get in the way.

 

If your accusation is that the whole of the Catholic church is lying--well, that is your prerogative.

 

I don't think I said anything to suggest I think the whole Catholic Church is lying.

 

I was under the impression we were discussing the comment that the CC reformed the use of indulgences to prevent abuse. I commented that while true and commonly stated by Catholic apologists - and I'll add here this is generally popular or amateur apoogists - that does not really address the Reformers theological issues with them.

 

And that, if the apologist does it consciously, is fudging the issue, by avoiding it. It is true, but not really an answer to the question, though the person being told may think it is. if they do it not realizing that the Reformers actually had basic theological issues beyond the abuses, then is is an innocent error.

[Colleen in NS]

I think that just like some who try to convince people to join Protestant groups, there are people who are so excited they have the answer they are willing to fudge things a bit to make it sound appealing. And this can be done with total sincerity and good will.

 

I really can't comprehend how you can fudge it when you get it from the Catechism, and sites like Catholic Answers.

 

Human nature can allow one to "fudge things a bit." I think Bluegoat is just illustrating human nature by using phrases such as "so excited," "total sincerity," and "good will."

 

If your accusation is that the whole of the Catholic church is lying--well, that is your prerogative.

 

I don't think she is accusing anyone of anything. Please reread her posts! :D

[Parrothead]

This book is WIGGING ME OUT. You know, you think you're doing it on your own, that you're the only one who sees the things and quietly tries to excuse themselves from the party because it just got a little too uncomfortable...until you find that there's a whole swath of you. Everything in that first chapter, the whole run down on the culture, everything.

 

That guy was in my head. I am Glued to the pages and had to buy it.

 

He being a sociologist is the definably strong point of this book.

With this recommendation I might have to sit down with this book. :D

[Parrothead]

God does not want you to be anxious for anything, do not let this become your decision without Him guiding you, ask for Him to reveal to you the way you should go...he never fails.

As you can see through history, man's understanding often brings any form of worship to a crossroads, but the one thing that has remained constant is God, Alpha and Omega...I was so awed by the cathedrals I witnessed in England and Italy. To know the hundreds of thousands who tried in their own way to worship the best they could...the same Father we worship today, we are all doing the best we can...but we are human and are not perfect, seek His perfect will and ou will do well.

Good advice for anyone. ;)

[ElizaG]

If they want to make the decision, let them be fully and truthfully informed.

:iagree: I thought the article by John MacArthur was going to engage with some of the more substantial reasons that well-informed Catholics give to support our beliefs in the primacy of Peter, Tradition as the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, etc. Instead, it's mostly an attack on converts themselves -- saying that they "simply assume" that these things are true, or that they convert for emotional reasons. Whether or not this is the case, these points don't relate to the validity of Catholicism per se.

 

He also spends a great deal of time quoting Dale Vree, a lay journalist who holds no authority and has expressed some personal beliefs (e.g., those cited in the article) that are considered to be borderline heretical by all the Catholics I know. :confused:

 

Kind of a let-down.

[Parrothead]

I don't think I said anything to suggest I think the whole Catholic Church is lying.

 

I was under the impression we were discussing the comment that the CC reformed the use of indulgences to prevent abuse. I commented that while true and commonly stated by Catholic apologists - and I'll add here this is generally popular or amateur apoogists - that does not really address the Reformers theological issues with them.

 

And that, if the apologist does it consciously, is fudging the issue, by avoiding it. It is true, but not really an answer to the question, though the person being told may think it is. if they do it not realizing that the Reformers actually had basic theological issues beyond the abuses, then is is an innocent error.

I think I get what you are saying.

 

It wasn't/isn't so much the past abuses of indulgences that the Reformers (and today's Protestants) have a problem with. It is the fact that that theology (of indulgences) exists in the first place.

 

I suppose maybe they don't think the practice is Biblical?

 

(The RCC does not do anything that isn't Biblical. The Church's teaching/understanding of the specific passages may be different than those of a Protestant Christian. If anyone wants to know which passages - 1 Cor 5:3-3, 2 Cor 2: 5-6, and Col 1:24.)

[Parrothead]

I wonder now if there is anything available (online/ in a book) that truthfully and accurately compares the RCC with (for the sake of simplicity) mainline Protestant Christianity.

 

Even something as simple as a chart. For instance on the topic of Mary, a chart showing what Bible verses Catholics use to uphold the theology of Mary and next to that Bible verses showing why Protestant Christians do not.

 

Looking online yesterday the only things I was able to find is what I have to believe are "nutjobs" passing along propaganda trying to scare Protestant Christians away from the RCC. Things that are mostly lies with hints of truth that will in no way stand up to actual scholarly scrutiny.

[ElizaG]

I think I get what you are saying.

 

It wasn't/isn't so much the past abuses of indulgences that the Reformers (and today's Protestants) have a problem with. It is the fact that that theology (of indulgences) exists in the first place.

 

I suppose maybe they don't think the practice is Biblical?

It's not just a "Bible alone" vs. "Tradition" issue. Eastern Christians also consider indulgences and purgatory to be Western theological concepts that diverge from Patristic ideas. There's a lot of variation in how far they take this, though.

 

Among the Orthodox, views range from seeing them as heretical, to just seriously misguided.

 

Byzantine Catholics, while they wouldn't use these formulations themselves, believe that they can be reconciled in principle. (Translation: they sort of look the other way, and try not to think about what those crazy Latins are doing. ;))

 

 

ETA : Compared to older documents, the CCC does present a different emphasis on these teachings. This has come out of recent Western theological renewal and attempts at rapprochement with the East. I see it as a positive thing, and don't think it's fair to call it "glossing over," but I can understand how it might seem that way to an outsider.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Eleanor

[Parrothead]

I did find this. I'm not sure of the accuracy on either side. I have to go for a bit. I'll look at it again when I get back.

[Ellie]

:iagree: I thought the article by John MacArthur was going to engage with some of the more substantial reasons that well-informed Catholics give to support our beliefs in the primacy of Peter, Tradition as the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, etc. Instead, it's mostly an attack on converts themselves -- saying that they "simply assume" that these things are true, or that they convert for emotional reasons. Whether or not this is the case, these points don't relate to the validity of Catholicism per se.

See, that's exactly what I would have expected from John McArthur. As I Protestant, I liked him; as a Catholic...not so much. But he has to believe that the Catholic Church teaches untruth; otherwise, he'd have to convert, right?

[Virg]

:iagree: I thought the article by John MacArthur was going to engage with some of the more substantial reasons that well-informed Catholics give to support our beliefs in the primacy of Peter, Tradition as the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, etc. Instead, it's mostly an attack on converts themselves -- saying that they "simply assume" that these things are true, or that they convert for emotional reasons. Whether or not this is the case, these points don't relate to the validity of Catholicism per se.

 

He also spends a great deal of time quoting Dale Vree, a lay journalist who holds no authority and has expressed some personal beliefs (e.g., those cited in the article) that are considered to be borderline heretical by all the Catholics I know. :confused:

 

Kind of a let-down.

 

:iagree: His view of Catholicism is rather extreme. I don't really see how Catholicism is any further from, say, Methodism than some Pentecostals are. He is not a person I would look to for advice on this particular issue. :001_smile: (Said by a Methodist raised by a theologian to believe that we are all a part of the body of Christ.)

[Virg]

See, that's exactly what I would have expected from John McArthur. As I Protestant, I liked him; as a Catholic...not so much. But he has to believe that the Catholic Church teaches untruth; otherwise, he'd have to convert, right?

 

That is what I expect from him but it isn't necessary of Protestants. I know a lot of Protestants who believe that, while we interpret sections of the Bible differently, the Catholics don't believe "untruths". I can disagree with a particular view without going to the extreme that they are completely wrong or "heretical". Some issues in life are like that, many of us don't believe this is one. I just hate the thought that Catholics view "all us Protestants" as thinking them "heretical". Many of us don't :001_smile:

 

Thank you so much all who posted helpful links. These threads are so enlightening for me and I am sure other lurkers like me! The Catholic Church is so often misrepresented that it is hard to know what they truly believe and these links help a lot!

[zaichiki]

I wonder now if there is anything available (online/ in a book) that truthfully and accurately compares the RCC with (for the sake of simplicity) mainline Protestant Christianity.

 

Even something as simple as a chart. For instance on the topic of Mary, a chart showing what Bible verses Catholics use to uphold the theology of Mary and next to that Bible verses showing why Protestant Christians do not.

 

There are the "Friendly Defender" cards. They're made for kids... one question (from a Protestant perspective) on each card with the Catholic answer/reason and citation from the Bible. That's sort of a comparison... and each includes the related verses. Topics include succession, intercession, Mary, rosary, infallibility, tradition/Tradition, and on and on...

 

Here's a link:

http://www.friendlydefenders.com/index2.htm

[Bluegoat]

I think I get what you are saying.

 

It wasn't/isn't so much the past abuses of indulgences that the Reformers (and today's Protestants) have a problem with. It is the fact that that theology (of indulgences) exists in the first place.

 

I suppose maybe they don't think the practice is Biblical?

 

(The RCC does not do anything that isn't Biblical. The Church's teaching/understanding of the specific passages may be different than those of a Protestant Christian. If anyone wants to know which passages - 1 Cor 5:3-3, 2 Cor 2: 5-6, and Col 1:24.)

 

I don't think i would put it down to not being Biblical, but I know there are some people who would. I think that would probably be an anachronistic way to look at the Reformers though, at least most of them. They did not really reject the value of the Tradition of the Church, or imagine that they were somehow part of a whole new church, or think that it was possible to understand Christianity through Scripture alone. What they did think though was that it was possible for the authority of the Church to err in its teachings, and that these errors could become confused with Tradition - this was based on their experience as though the Church was claiming that fairly questionable practices were a legitimate part of Church teaching. And I don't think there is much question that the Church at that time was very seriously corrupt and yet asserting its right to be that way on the basis of its authority, so it is not really that strange that they might come to that conclusion.

 

What that meant for them was that they could not trust Tradition absolutly, nor the teaching authority of the Church itself. They had to find some other principle to make determinations about correct teaching. Scripture was what filled that gap. So it was not because Tradition or the Church was always untrue - but those things needed to be subject to what is sometimes called scriptural norming to see if they were actively in conflict.

 

Lots of things that aren't obviously "Biblical" and were taught by Tradition were fine by the Reformers - the use of liturgy or the perpetual virginity of Mary come to mind as examples.

 

But some things did not pass muster, or the close attention to Scripture caused a change in theological emphasis -that is the reformer's tradition of interpretation - that meant it was no longer acceptable.

 

Indulgences to some extent come into that last category. So I would say the reasons for rejecting indulgences were more generally theological than Biblical. One example is the idea of the Tresury of Merit which conflicted with the Protestant emphasis on the impossibility of fallen humans doing anything of their own account. If even our good works are through grace, how can the excess good works of even the very holy be different from the merit of Christ himself? It begins to seem very artificial to separate eternal effects of sin from temporal effects, and merits applied to eternal effects from those applied to temporal effects. They also had a big issue with the idea that it was possible to do more good than is required at all - what is sometimes called a work of supererogation.

 

Where you are correct though is that the reformers generally believed that although tradition and theological musings might give us many true pieces of information, if they could not be confirmed by Scripture in some way they could not be considered necessary for salvation - that is, it is wrong for the Church to say that people who don't believe these things will be dammed. So while I think Martin Luther would have punched out someone who didn't believe in Mary's sinlessness or perpetual virginity, he might have hesitated to say that anyone must believe those things or be condemned.

[Jeanne in MN]

If the Catholic Church has abandoned the Bible (which is utterly crazy!) why would scriptures be a major part of the mass? Why would Catholics have Bible studies? Why would scripture be used in religious education classes, Vacation Bible Schools, retreats, and all sorts of Catholic functions? Catholicism has not abandoned the Bible.

 

 

 

:iagree:This. Exactly.

[Trish]

The major thrust of the Reformation is that the Roman Catholic Church had abandoned the Bible in favor of the traditions of man. One of the major tenets of the Protestant Reformation is sola scritura (scripture alone). Man's word or traditions does not have any biblical authority at all.

 

Some of these Traditions were understood as begun by Jesus. They aren't "man's traditions" any more than it's "man's Bible." And the reason the Bible has authority is...somebody said so. :D

[knit247]

I wonder now if there is anything available (online/ in a book) that truthfully and accurately compares the RCC with (for the sake of simplicity) mainline Protestant Christianity.

 

Even something as simple as a chart. For instance on the topic of Mary, a chart showing what Bible verses Catholics use to uphold the theology of Mary and next to that Bible verses showing why Protestant Christians do not...

 

Yes. This. You asked in a few sentences what took me paragraphs ;) That is what I would love to find.

[Spy Car]

I don't think i would put it down to not being Biblical, but I know there are some people who would. I think that would probably be an anachronistic way to look at the Reformers though, at least most of them. They did not really reject the value of the Tradition of the Church, or imagine that they were somehow part of a whole new church, or think that it was possible to understand Christianity through Scripture alone. What they did think though was that it was possible for the authority of the Church to err in its teachings, and that these errors could become confused with Tradition - this was based on their experience as though the Church was claiming that fairly questionable practices were a legitimate part of Church teaching. And I don't think there is much question that the Church at that time was very seriously corrupt and yet asserting its right to be that way on the basis of its authority, so it is not really that strange that they might come to that conclusion.

 

What that meant for them was that they could not trust Tradition absolutly, nor the teaching authority of the Church itself. They had to find some other principle to make determinations about correct teaching. Scripture was what filled that gap. So it was not because Tradition or the Church was always untrue - but those things needed to be subject to what is sometimes called scriptural norming to see if they were actively in conflict.

 

Lots of things that aren't obviously "Biblical" and were taught by Tradition were fine by the Reformers - the use of liturgy or the perpetual virginity of Mary come to mind as examples.

 

But some things did not pass muster, or the close attention to Scripture caused a change in theological emphasis -that is the reformer's tradition of interpretation - that meant it was no longer acceptable.

 

Indulgences to some extent come into that last category. So I would say the reasons for rejecting indulgences were more generally theological than Biblical. One example is the idea of the Tresury of Merit which conflicted with the Protestant emphasis on the impossibility of fallen humans doing anything of their own account. If even our good works are through grace, how can the excess good works of even the very holy be different from the merit of Christ himself? It begins to seem very artificial to separate eternal effects of sin from temporal effects, and merits applied to eternal effects from those applied to temporal effects. They also had a big issue with the idea that it was possible to do more good than is required at all - what is sometimes called a work of supererogation.

 

Where you are correct though is that the reformers generally believed that although tradition and theological musings might give us many true pieces of information, if they could not be confirmed by Scripture in some way they could not be considered necessary for salvation - that is, it is wrong for the Church to say that people who don't believe these things will be dammed. So while I think Martin Luther would have punched out someone who didn't believe in Mary's sinlessness or perpetual virginity, he might have hesitated to say that anyone must believe those things or be condemned.

 

I really enjoyed reading this post. Without necessarily endorsing your position, it is a great pleasure to read an argument presented such a well-reasoned fashion.

 

Bill

[Colleen in NS]

...it is a great pleasure to read an argument presented such a well-reasoned fashion.

 

:iagree: I really enjoy her posts because of this quality. :D

[Bluegoat]

I really enjoyed reading this post. Without necessarily endorsing your position, it is a great pleasure to read an argument presented such a well-reasoned fashion.

 

Bill

 

:iagree: I really enjoy her posts because of this quality. :D

 

 

:blush:

[Spy Car]

:blush:

 

If I could ask one indulgence (pun intended :D), could I ask you to elaborate on the one point quoted below? I'm not sure I fully understand the point you are making (limitation mine) and I care to.

 

Bill

 

If even our good works are through grace, how can the excess good works of even the very holy be different from the merit of Christ himself? It begins to seem very artificial to separate eternal effects of sin from temporal effects, and merits applied to eternal effects from those applied to temporal effects. They also had a big issue with the idea that it was possible to do more good than is required at all - what is sometimes called a work of supererogation.

[ElizaG]

If I could ask one indulgence (pun intended :D), could I ask you to elaborate on the one point quoted below? I'm not sure I fully understand the point you are making (limitation mine) and I care to.

 

Bill

Not Bluegoat, but here's a secular (and ostensibly neutral) resource that might be helpful for the latter part:

 

Supererogation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

ETA: Part way down the page, there's a typo: "superergoatary action." I like that image. :D

Edited February 14, 2012 by Eleanor