"7 Key Differences Between Protestant and Catholic Doctrine." An article

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This article is bogus from the get-go:
  1. The Magisterium - “large house of cardinals and leading theologians”? Fail.
  2. Priesthood of all believers - Catholics believe this too.
  3. Veneration of Saints and Mary - “Not as praying to the Saints and the Virgin Mary, but praying through them.” False. Fail. “Protestants emphasize direct access to God” as if Catholics don’t have that? Fail.
 
Sure, we could pick it apart or rewrite it more to our liking, but I think it’s fine blog article and a pretty good outline of the differences.
 
Anesti33 said:
The differences between what?
Click to expand...
What do you think? In your first post, you objected to the use of the word doctrine. I get your point. Then substitute religion, belief, practice, etc.

The 3 or 4 objections given in your next post are relatively minor. I understand the truth of what you wrote, but I also see a good measure of truth in the article.

My approach is to try to understand the author and take what truth I can find, and not quibble over his wording, or worse, dismiss the whole thing. It’s a good article.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as Protestant Religion, Protestant Belief, or Protestant Practice.

This is like saying “Here are the differences between the way Americans and humans cook dinner.”
 
Last edited:
I am having a bit of difficulty parsing that. Do you object to the term Protestant? I think you understand what I wrote. Let’s work toward understanding.

I don’t have the time or energy for word games unless they are declared as word games. In the Casual Discussion category there are many word games. I am particularly fond of Change One Letter.
 
Yes, as we often remind questioners on this forum, Protestants have a wide spectrum of doctrine and praxis, and so it is folly to speak of them as a monolithic group, as if they all believe or practice something in particular. Their beliefs are often fundamentally contradictory (which is strange because they’re all “based on Scripture”) so it is important to define which theological school and confession and denomination and sect we’re discussing when we bring up an article of faith.

I think this is doubly strange because Protestants wrote the article in the OP, so wouldn’t they know this about themselves?

Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
Does that help?
Click to expand...
Not really. You have expressed yourself clearly and truly, but it does not help.

Got anything good to say about the Original Post?

And since this is the Non-Catholic Religions category, do you have anything good to say about Non-Catholic Religions, or non-Catholic people?
 
Last edited:
Protestant here probably means the theology taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary. Their core statement of faith is probably:
DTS stands unequivocally committed to God’s inerrant Scriptures. This commitment leads to a system of doctrine in which the great fundamentals of the Christian faith are affirmed and expounded. The doctrines of evangelical orthodoxy are taught in the framework of premillennial, dispensational theology, derived from a consistent grammatical- historical interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
They also say:
DTS is nondenominational and seeks to serve those of like biblical faith in evangelical Protestantism. The faculty, governing boards, and students are members of various denominational or independent churches.
Click to expand...
They may have other indicators of who they are, so I would not say it is limited to this. I think they have overstepped by identifying “Protestant” with what they believe, but it is accurate to some degree. Just like their descriptions of Catholicism are accurate to some degree, at least enough to make these comments helpful to some degree.
 
A few things to point out.
While Protestants only view the Scriptures as authoritative…
Click to expand...
Depends on who you are talking about. There are lots of things that are authoritative from a Lutheran viewpoint. The three Ecumenical Creeds, the early councils, the Lutheran Confessions. Lutherans understand sola scriptura as scripture being the final norm, not the only norm.
Protestants often express the idea that salvation is by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. This assertion views justification as specific point upon which God declares that you are righteous—a point where you enter into the Christian life.
Click to expand...
Certainly some may, but I have always viewed my justification as a process that began with my baptism, a month and a day after I was born.
And, justification can be lost.
When it comes to the Eucharist, which most Protestants call ‘The Lord’s Supper,” or “Communion,”
Click to expand...
Lutherans often refer to it as the Eucharist. I’ve heard Catholics refer to it as the Lords Supper and Holy Communion. The author makes a distinction that lacks a difference.
In contrast, some Protestants, like Lutherans, hold to perspective called consubstantiation , where Jesus’ body and blood are seen as coexisting with the bread and the wine.
Click to expand...
From Luther and Chemnitz to Sasse and Piepkorn, Lutherans have never referred to their understanding of the real presence as consubstantiation. Instead, it is rejected in term and meaning.
This miracle can be stated only as an article of faith, as Luther does at the beginning of the Article quoted:
Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians. [Smalcald Articles III VI 1]
Nothing else is Lutheran doctrine: The consecrated bread is the body; the consecrated wine is the blood of Christ. How that is possible, no person on earth can say. What we know is that Christ himself gave this explanation by saying: ‘This is my body… This is my blood of the new covenant’. On the basis of these words of Christ, Luther believes in the Real Presence without trying to build up a theory comparable to the theories of impanation, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or whatever else the subtle minds of philosophers and theologians may have devised in order to answer the question: How could the Real Presence be possible? - Sasse
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rather than a vertical structure, Protestants see the church as having a horizontal structure. Dr. Svigel contrasts the role of the Catholic priest with the Protestant idea of the priesthood of all believers:
“That which was reserved just for the magisterium, the ability to bind and loose to forgive and withhold forgiveness through the sacraments and through penance and such, that was just the role of the priest. From Luther on, we have the ability to confess our sins to one another, pronounce forgiveness as the scripture says.”
Click to expand...
In Lutheranism, we can certainly confess our sins to one another, and we can and should forgive each other when we hurt each other. But only God forgives sins, and only an ordained pastor can proclaim absolution. A typical example:
"As a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. + "
Roman Catholics see veneration, not as praying to the Saints and the Virgin Mary, but as praying through them.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
the Virgin Mary is seen as “the mother of our Lord
Click to expand...
Amen.
There is no equivalent to this kind of veneration in Protestantism, as Protestants emphasize direct access to God.
Click to expand...
Probably not, other than our requests for intercession from our brothers and sisters in Christ on Earth.
That said, it is quite reasonable for a Lutheran to ask God to hear the prayers of His saints in Heaven on our behalf.
 
Last edited:
And Anglicans…all sorts of Anglicans. Who do all sort of odd things. Very surprising, some Anglicans.

Like chanting the Angelus.
 
Anesti33 said:
Their beliefs are often fundamentally contradictory (which is strange because they’re all “based on Scripture”)
Click to expand...
Not any stranger than CC saying none of their doctrine or practices are “unbiblical”.

I suppose it a better reason for what one believes or does than what Luther was told at his hearing, which basically amounted to: “because I/ we said so”.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
40.png
Anesti33:
Their beliefs are often fundamentally contradictory (which is strange because they’re all “based on Scripture”)
Click to expand...
Not any stranger than CC saying none of their doctrine or practices are “unbiblical”.
Click to expand...
“Unbiblical” is a non-sequitir to Catholics, because the Bible does not define our doctrine, the Church does.
 
Anesti33 said:
Unbiblical” is a non-sequitir to Catholics, because the Bible does not define our doctrine, the Church does
Click to expand...
True. But that’s also true for Protestants. Denominations divide because Christians interpret the Bible differently. In effect, a “magisterium” forms in a denomination.

This is sometimes called “rightly dividing the Word”. But Methodists divide it different from Presbyterian.

As time goes on some of the leaders backed by some theologians in a denomination - the defacto magisterium - interpret the Bible in a way that others disagree with.

So the new group finds leaders and theologians (or perhaps tv preachers) to support their own authentic Methodist or whatever interpretation of Scripture. Tradition also enters into it. But still there’s a group of influential leaders/writers interpreting that. And they interpret that differently, too.

At no time in these processes is Scripture itself absent, nor is it the driving force. The driving force is an informal, shifting cycle of finding a magisterium that is currently reliable. But never calling it a magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
Unbiblical” is a non-sequitir to Catholics, because the Bible does not define our doctrine, the Church does.
Click to expand...
Well of course, just as Methodists or Baptists or Anglicans etc. do.

My point still stands.
 
Yes. And also he misses the essential point about the Mass, which is that it’s a sacrifice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top