A constructive dialogue between Protestants and Catholics

[expectthebest]

(In response to post #76)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…Yes…And no.

In the Catholic Church, we don’t play “Choose Your Own Theology”, no. The deposit of faith doesn’t work that way. It is what it is and our response it either to accept or reject. Period. In one sense.

In another, though, we do well to recognize that just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to describe the same reality. Because this is true and because we all too often fail to recognize this and end up in endless divisions accordingly, it is necessary from time to time to - at the very least - talk about or differences to make sure that they really are that - sbstantive differences, not mere differences in verbage. *

And* it is within this dialogue that we not only clarify our and our “opponent’s” position, we also tend to learn new things and come to new appreciations as well. (For example, Protestants tend to think that there is no scriptural evidence for Purgatory. When we engage in these types of dialogues, we can show them there is. Catholics, on the other hand, have traditionally tended to disregard scripture in favor of things like papal decrees or citations from the Catechism [which don’t ‘compute’ in most Protestant minds]. Dialoguing with Protestants has given myself and many others a renewed appreciated for God’s written Word.)

Further, the very act of dialoguing itself says that “I respect you in spite of our differences. I wish things were different.” Rather than, “We’re right. You’re wrong. Kneel down and kiss my feet or go away.”

Does that help to clarify?

SK

I do see your point and would agree that it is a valid one.

 

[expectthebest]

expectthebest;3733597:

You don’t know many Catholics, do you?

Not sure what you mean by that. I am Catholic, grew up Catholic, my entire family is Catholic, etc. I know lots of Catholics.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3733760:

Not sure what you mean by that. I am Catholic, grew up Catholic, my entire family is Catholic, etc. I know lots of Catholics.

How you developed the notion that all Catholics think and act alike is beyond me, then.

You can see it for yourself on this forum, where all manner of heterodoxy is manifest.

The notion that the Church dictates what we think is laughable—would only that that were so!

 

[Contarini]

It seems to me that hope means something totally different from my studies of protestant thinking on the matter. A protestant would believe that there is always hope as long as the person is sorry for their sins. A Catholic believes there is hope only if one is not in mortal sin. For this person, there is no hope to trust in, unless confession can be reached before death. The Catholic doesn’t believe there is even hope to trust in that God would help them get to confession before death, even if they are sorry. Therefore, for a protestant, there is always hope. For a Catholic, mortal sin negates all trust in hope. I think this is a very large difference which is very directly related to salvation. This is certainly no “gnat”.

This makes no sense. I ought not to be catechizing a Catholic in the faith of his own Church, but it seems pretty clear to me that for Catholics hope is a virtue enjoined on all. I think you are defining hope in the specifically Calvinist sense of a confidence that one will be saved. The traditional Catholic meaning is closer to the normal sense of the word–it involves a hope in God’s mercy, even though one cannot be 100% confident that one will in fact persevere in receiving and responding to that mercy.

Edwin

 

[expectthebest]

expectthebest;3733960:

How you developed the notion that all Catholics think and act alike is beyond me, then.

You can see it for yourself on this forum, where all manner of heterodoxy is manifest.

The notion that the Church dictates what we think is laughable—would only that that were so!

I never said that all Catholics think alike. I know Catholics who think abortion is fine. I know Catholics who don’t believe missing mass once in a while is a big deal. This doesn’t mean they are following their faith. Of course all Catholics do not think alike. But, on matters of faith and doctine, the Church certainly does tell us exactly what to think and believe under pain of eternal damnation. Catholics are allowed to have different beliefs on some very minor things which the Church has not hyet defined. Other than that, we must believe what the Churhc teaches.

I simply stated what I was taught. If I am wrong, so be it. Let me know why. Let me know where I said that all Catholics think alike. I suggest that you keep your “laughable” responses to yourself and give your argument. I would also suggest that your arguments be based on what was actually said.

 

[expectthebest]

This makes no sense. I ought not to be catechizing a Catholic in the faith of his own Church, but it seems pretty clear to me that for Catholics hope is a virtue enjoined on all. I think you are defining hope in the specifically Calvinist sense of a confidence that one will be saved. The traditional Catholic meaning is closer to the normal sense of the word–it involves a hope in God’s mercy, even though one cannot be 100% confident that one will in fact persevere in receiving and responding to that mercy.

Edwin

We can always hope that God will have mercy beyond what the Church teaches he will have. But, unless I was taught wrongly, the Church teaches that one in mortal sin cannot be saved unless that person either has perfect contrition (which is almost impossible) or unless that person makes it to confession before death. Without this, there is no chance for salvation. At least this is my understanding of the Chatechism. If I am mistaken, please someone correct me.

Sure, anyone can hope for anything. I can hope that I win the lottery without buying a ticket, but it’s astronomically improbable. In reallity, it’s no hope at all. See what I am getting at?

I would agree that the protestant does not believe in hope in the same way as Catholics. Protestants seem to have more of an assured salvation where Catholics wouldn’t agree that salvation is ever assured. This is evident in the difference between a Cathlic funeral (much more solomn with the hope the person was saved) and a protestant funeral (a celebration with the faithful being assured the person who died is in heaven).

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93;3734010:

I never said that all Catholics think alike. I know Catholics who think abortion is fine. I know Catholics who don’t believe missing mass once in a while is a big deal. This doesn’t mean they are following their faith. Of course all Catholics do not think alike. But, on matters of faith and doctine, the Church certainly does tell us exactly what to think and believe under pain of eternal damnation. Catholics are allowed to have different beliefs on some very minor things which the Church has not hyet defined. Other than that, we must believe what the Churhc teaches.

Sure, but the amount of dogma is small relative to doctrine, and doctrine small relative to the amount of things to have an opinion about. The yoke is light, in other words, but important.

I simply stated what I was taught. If I am wrong, so be it. Let me know why. Let me know where I said that all Catholics think alike. I suggest that you keep your “laughable” responses to yourself and give your argument. I would also suggest that your arguments be based on what was actually said.

Well, let’s let people be the judge. Here’s your original comment:

JonNC;3728697:

This is certainly a very interesting thread, to see where the small differences are. I hate to be negative, but in the end, if protestants don’t agree with the “gnats” of Catholic teaching, there will not be reconcilliation with the Church. In the view of the Church, either protestants agree 100% with the Church or they don’t. There is no in between. I often think that people see discussions between the Catholic and protestant leadership as something where everyone can come to an understanding and give a little to get to a middle ground. This will not happen. It’s the Catholic way or the highway. **The Church does not allow its followers to think on their own. What is defined is defined and that’s the end of it. **

Right?

Now, the bolded portion is a curious thing for a Catholic to believe. Perhaps it is worded poorly, and does not reflect your actual belief.

I’ve found the Church to be more encouraging of individual inquiry than any of the Protestant communities to which I’ve belonged, which sought to keep the faithful from being exposed to certain books and bodies of knowledge. Now, it is certainly true that in regard to dogma, we are expected to align to Church teaching, and with respect to doctrine are encouraged to, but the hand isn’t heavy even in our very orthodox parish. From my fairly extensive reading of Church history, this is a hallmark of Catholicism. Indeed, Catholics gripe all the time that the Church is insufficiently dogmatic.

Perhaps you could explain the last part of your statement, which reads like a variation of the “Catholics are mind-numbed robots” argument we see from anti-Catholic quarters from time to time.

 

[Contarini]

We can always hope that God will have mercy beyond what the Church teaches he will have. But, unless I was taught wrongly, the Church teaches that one in mortal sin cannot be saved unless that person either has perfect contrition (which is almost impossible)

No, it’s not almost impossible. Without God’s help it is of course impossible. Which is, again, where the virtue of hope comes in.

or unless that person makes it to confession before death.

But again, a robust hope in God’s mercy leads us to be reasonably confident that God isn’t sitting up in heaven with a stopwatch saying, “You poor sucker–if you’d just caught that last bus you would have made it to confession in time, but since you dropped dead five feet from the church door it’s off to hell you go!” As I understand the Catholic position, these rules lay out what we are supposed to do–i.e., express contrition for our sins and go to confession as soon as possible. The late medieval Church had a maxim: “to the one who does what is in him God does not deny grace.” This drove Luther up the wall because, as Luther pointed out, how do you know that you’ve done your best? But if interpreted reasonably and pastorally (and with due recognition of the fact that our “doing what is is us” is itself only possible with God’s “prevenient grace”) I think it’s a comforting maxim. God isn’t harsh or vindictive or sadistic. He wants us to be saved. What we have to worry about is being repentant of our sins and using the means of grace God has provided.

I recognize that many Catholics have been taught (not so much these days, but in the past) to think the way you do. And this is one of my huge problems with Catholicism. But frankly I think the Protestant view of salvation has plenty of problems of its own. I don’t think the issue is so much Protestantism vs. Catholicism, but a legalistic and fear-driven view of God vs. a healthy confidence in God’s mercy. I see plenty of fear and legalism in Protestantism as well (the main difference is that Protestants are divided into different denominations, some of which rely heavily on fear and some of which are hopelessly mushy).

I would agree that the protestant does not believe in hope in the same way as Catholics. Protestants seem to have more of an assured salvation where Catholics wouldn’t agree that salvation is ever assured. This is evident in the difference between a Cathlic funeral (much more solomn with the hope the person was saved) and a protestant funeral (a celebration with the faithful being assured the person who died is in heaven).

But this leads to what I consider insoluble problems. Either you take it upon yourself to judge whether or not the person is in heaven (which is the sin of presumption if anything ever was), or you simply assume that everyone is in heaven (which is more amiable but also presumptuous). The “assurance” concept is, in my opinion, a source of far more terror than comfort. At least that’s been my experience. It just gives you one more thing to worry about. The only way that “assurance” can really be a source of comfort is if you pin it to certain rituals and signs–as long as you have said the “sinner’s prayer” or whatever you are assured of salvation. But this is obviously false. It’s clear that such ritual acts do not assure people of final salvation. I know that the concept of assurance is appealing if you have grown up with a legalistic interpretation of Catholicism. But my experience with it is one of terror and agony.

I should add that there are two forms of assurance doctrine. There’s the view that we can and should have assurance of final salvation (this implies a doctrine of eternal security). This I think is clearly false. My own Wesleyan tradition teaches that we can have an assurance of present salvation. I think that properly understood this is legitimate, but if you put too much weight on it (as my tradition did), it becomes what I have described above: a source of spiritual torment.

Edwin

 

[expectthebest]

expectthebest;3736146:

Sure, but the amount of dogma is small relative to doctrine, and doctrine small relative to the amount of things to have an opinion about. The yoke is light, in other words, but important.

Well, let’s let people be the judge. Here’s your original comment:
expectthebest;3733597:

Now, the bolded portion is a curious thing for a Catholic to believe. Perhaps it is worded poorly, and does not reflect your actual belief.

I’ve found the Church to be more encouraging of individual inquiry than any of the Protestant communities to which I’ve belonged, which sought to keep the faithful from being exposed to certain books and bodies of knowledge. Now, it is certainly true that in regard to dogma, we are expected to align to Church teaching, and with respect to doctrine are encouraged to, but the hand isn’t heavy even in our very orthodox parish. From my fairly extensive reading of Church history, this is a hallmark of Catholicism. Indeed, Catholics gripe all the time that the Church is insufficiently dogmatic.

Perhaps you could explain the last part of your statement, which reads like a variation of the “Catholics are mind-numbed robots” argument we see from anti-Catholic quarters from time to time.

I would argue that there is nothing of consequence that Catholics are allowed to question. There are small matters but these are inconsequencial in the big picture.

The bolded part you refer to is not at all curious for a Catholic to believe. I would argue that all consequecial matters have been defined by the Church and that we are not allowed to question these. So, on issues that really count, Catholics are not allowed to think on their own.

I was always thought that dogma and doctrine were things we must believe to be Catholic. Perhaps I was tought wrongly?

 

[expectthebest]

No, it’s not almost impossible. Without God’s help it is of course impossible. Which is, again, where the virtue of hope comes in.

I was taught that perfect contrition is a very rare occurrence and is very difficult. I was also taught that it is so rare, we can never know if our contrition is perfect or not.

But again, a robust hope in God’s mercy leads us to be reasonably confident that God isn’t sitting up in heaven with a stopwatch saying, “You poor sucker–if you’d just caught that last bus you would have made it to confession in time, but since you dropped dead five feet from the church door it’s off to hell you go!” As I understand the Catholic position, these rules lay out what we are supposed to do–i.e., express contrition for our sins and go to confession as soon as possible.

The Church does not teach this. If you die in mortal sin, regardless of how hard you try to get to confession and regardless of how sorry your are (short of perfect contrition) you are damned. If I’m not mistaken, this is the dogma of the Church. Anything more is just warm and fuzzy conjecture.

The late medieval Church had a maxim: “to the one who does what is in him God does not deny grace.” This drove Luther up the wall because, as Luther pointed out, how do you know that you’ve done your best? But if interpreted reasonably and pastorally (and with due recognition of the fact that our “doing what is is us” is itself only possible with God’s “prevenient grace”) I think it’s a comforting maxim.

I have a great problem with this also and can see where Luther was coming from. How do we know we have done our best? Is our best waking the priest up in the middle of the night for confession? Is our best making an appointment in the middle of the week? Is our best going to confession during the standard time? Is our best canceling a family trip to make it to confession? What is our best? Luther was a scrupulous individual spending hours in confession. I can relate to him closely in his fear of hell in not knowing if we are doing our best or not. This is an easy question to answer for a non thinking unsrupulous individual. But for someone like me, it is very hard.

God isn’t harsh or vindictive or sadistic. He wants us to be saved. What we have to worry about is being repentant of our sins and using the means of grace God has provided.

This is not what the Church teaches. If we die in mortal sin and short of perfect contrition, it doesn’t matter how repentant we are, we are still damned.

But this leads to what I consider insoluble problems. Either you take it upon yourself to judge whether or not the person is in heaven (which is the sin of presumption if anything ever was), or you simply assume that everyone is in heaven (which is more amiable but also presumptuous). The “assurance” concept is, in my opinion, a source of far more terror than comfort. At least that’s been my experience. It just gives you one more thing to worry about. The only way that “assurance” can really be a source of comfort is if you pin it to certain rituals and signs–as long as you have said the “sinner’s prayer” or whatever you are assured of salvation. But this is obviously false. It’s clear that such ritual acts do not assure people of final salvation. I know that the concept of assurance is appealing if you have grown up with a legalistic interpretation of Catholicism. But my experience with it is one of terror and agony.

Most protestants I know are very comfortable with their salvation so I’m not sure where you are coming from there. In regards to rituals, the Catholic Church has far more ritual Sacrements than do the protestants. Confession is one of these and one cannot be saved without confession, even in the state of grace unless it is used at least once per year.

Personnally, I are tormented by the rules and regulations put forth by the Church. It is very difficult for me to view the Church and God as the same. For me, the Church is a heavy, damning burden just waiting to pronounce someone damned. For me, God is very loving and I am so full of love for God. But one spends so much time dealing with the Church that their is not much room left over for love. For me, the Church seems to be that example you gave of the timer clicking just waiting for someone to die without performing the ritual Sacremental duties.

 

[Teflon93]

I would argue that there is nothing of consequence that Catholics are allowed to question. There are small matters but these are inconsequencial in the big picture.

These “inconsequential” issues are the biggest issues of our day—capital punishment, social justice, and so on. Most of us live our lives without a practical conflict with dogma such as the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, not so with these issues. The Church’s position approaches dogma on them only with regard to the abortion issue, matters of war, death, and economics are much more nuanced.

The bolded part you refer to is not at all curious for a Catholic to believe. I would argue that all consequecial matters have been defined by the Church and that we are not allowed to question these. So, on issues that really count, Catholics are not allowed to think on their own.

I disagree completely with the last statement. Indeed, the Catholic Church is MORE tolerant and respectful of heterodoxy on nondogmatic things than any other denomination of which I’ve been a part. The whole concept of the university came about through the Church for this very reason.

I was always thought that dogma and doctrine were things we must believe to be Catholic. Perhaps I was tought wrongly?

Must=dogma, should = doctrine. That’s what makes dogma dogmatic.

You’ll be excommunicated if you’re a Catholic abortionist; if you’re a Catholic electrician working on Ol’ Sparky in Florida you won’t be.

Catholics are not, and have never been, robots.

 

[expectthebest]

These “inconsequential” issues are the biggest issues of our day—capital punishment, social justice, and so on. Most of us live our lives without a practical conflict with dogma such as the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, not so with these issues. The Church’s position approaches dogma on them only with regard to the abortion issue, matters of war, death, and economics are much more nuanced.

What I mean by inconsequential is that the issues you have mentioned have nothing to do with salvation. When it comes down to it, if it isn’t directly necessary for salvation, which is the ultimate goal over all else, it is inconsequential. By the way, I don’t think the lutherans or the episcaples have any more binding theology on the issues you mentioned then the Catholic Church.

If I’m not mistaken, all issues directly impacting salvation including the Sacrements are dogmatic. These are the only issues of real consequence in a person’s life in regards to being saved. All else in not consequential in a salvic sense.

 

[Teflon93]

What I mean by inconsequential is that the issues you have mentioned have nothing to do with salvation. When it comes down to it, if it isn’t directly necessary for salvation, which is the ultimate goal over all else, it is inconsequential. By the way, I don’t think the lutherans or the episcaples have any more binding theology on the issues you mentioned then the Catholic Church.

If I’m not mistaken, all issues directly impacting salvation including the Sacrements are dogmatic. These are the only issues of real consequence in a person’s life in regards to being saved. All else in not consequential in a salvic sense.

Defining your terms may be helpful.

The Catholic Church is not dogmatic even on all aspects of salvation—for example, the fate of babies who die before baptism. Even where she is dogmatic, different schools of thought remain relative to the practical implications of the dogma—for example, the notion that “there is no salvation outside the Church” may be construed narrowly or broadly; there are orthodox Catholics all along the spectrum. You can see many threads on this subject elsewhere in this forum.

 

[expectthebest]

Teflon93,

Can you offer a list or point to one of all actual infallible dogma as differenciated by non-inflallible doctrine?

 

[Contarini]

I was taught that perfect contrition is a very rare occurrence and is very difficult. I was also taught that it is so rare, we can never know if our contrition is perfect or not.

I don’t see that these two things are connected. Obviously you don’t know if your contrition is perfect or not. But that says nothing about how rare it is. I can understand why old-fashioned Catholic catechists would put it the way you’re describing it, because they wanted to emphasize the seriousness of mortal sin and the need for sacramental confession.

If I’m not mistaken, this is the dogma of the Church. Anything more is just warm and fuzzy conjecture.

No, it’s hope in God’s mercy.

Your example is indeed powerful evidence for the all-too-obvious fact that Catholic catechesis often misfires badly. More often these days you hear of people who have no idea of the basics of Christianity, or who have been taught “warm and fuzzy” nonsense. For instance, I was told in RCIA that most likely none of us in the class had ever committed a mortal sin. (Yes, I was in RCIA, and yes, I dropped out!) That’s an error in one direction. But from my perspective as an Episcopalian the way you were taught was an error in the other direction. I think that what I’m saying is fully in accord with Catholic teaching and is in fact the dominant approach today–I think the Pope would agree with it, for instance. (Indeed, one of the Pope’s favorite theologians, Hans Urs von Balthasar, taught that we can legitimately hope that *no one *will be damned, although of course damnation is always a possibility. I am not claiming that the Pope thinks this himself, but von Balthasar has never been condemned for this teaching.)

This is an easy question to answer for a non thinking unsrupulous individual. But for someone like me, it is very hard.

I agree.

Most protestants I know are very comfortable with their salvation so I’m not sure where you are coming from there.

I’m telling you my experience. I’m trying to show you that Protestant theology can torture scrupulous consciences as well. From where I stand, the Catholic position seems more commonsense and less tormenting than the standard evangelical position. But you are right–many evangelicals don’t seem to find it tormenting at all. I question the theological basis for their confidence, though.

In regards to rituals, the Catholic Church has far more ritual Sacrements than do the protestants. Confession is one of these and one cannot be saved without confession, even in the state of grace unless it is used at least once per year.

The point I was making was not about the amount of ritual. My point was that many Protestants believe that if you have “accepted Jesus as your savior” you can be confident of salvation. This act of “accepting Jesus” is in many cases a ritual.

Where it is not, it is an emotional experience. And whether you find that comforting or not depends on your relationship to your emotions. For many people, their emotions seem to be obviously self-validating. They don’t seem to question them at all. I question my emotions all the time. I rarely respond in prescribed emotional ways, and I am never sure whether I am really feeling what I think I’m feeling. Perhaps I am weird. But any religion that requires me to feel something is a religion of torture as far as I’m concerned. (I don’t mean that I don’t have emotions, just that they are weird and unpredictable.)

I’m not against ritual. But we have the traditional sacraments of the Church. I prefer to stick with those rituals.

Personnally, I are tormented by the rules and regulations put forth by the Church. It is very difficult for me to view the Church and God as the same. For me, the Church is a heavy, damning burden just waiting to pronounce someone damned. For me, God is very loving and I am so full of love for God. But one spends so much time dealing with the Church that their is not much room left over for love. For me, the Church seems to be that example you gave of the timer clicking just waiting for someone to die without performing the ritual Sacremental duties.

You need to talk to a good and holy priest. If you are anywhere near New York, I would urge you to seek out Fr. Benedict Groeschel or one of the brothers of his order. I think someone like Fr. Groeschel would be able to give you some good advice.

Or you could become Episcopalian

I am not seriously trying to make you an Episcopalian, but it would be better than losing your faith, and from my perspective it would be better than becoming a Baptist or something of that sort.

Edwin

 

[grandfather]

JonNC;3728697:

This is certainly a very interesting thread, to see where the small differences are. I hate to be negative, but in the end, if protestants don’t agree with the “gnats” of Catholic teaching, there will not be reconcilliation with the Church. In the view of the Church, either protestants agree 100% with the Church or they don’t. There is no in between. I often think that people see discussions between the Catholic and protestant leadership as something where everyone can come to an understanding and give a little to get to a middle ground. This will not happen. It’s the Catholic way or the highway. The Church does not allow its followers to think on their own. What is defined is defined and that’s the end of it. Right?

Goodness, we would never want to be negative.

It is the way of truth or the highway. God revealed to mankind certain truths that can only be received in faith, believing that which God has revealed. Jesus founded a Church. The deposit of faith is held in His Church. There can only be one truth. He chose certain men and taught them and commanded them to teach all the nations all that He taught them, making disciples, followers. He commanded unity of those who belong to His Church according to scripture. He said a house divided will surely fall. Christendom is divided. Paul commanded that we be of one mind. The true Church is united in faith, in the truths she guards and those who do not accept them are outside the Church. A heretic is someone who picks and chooses what he will believe.

There are defined truths that are de fide, of the faith, called dogmas. They are essential to the faith. Who decides what they are? Jesus promised He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into “all” truth and be with her until the end of time. You receive the faith, the truths of the faith from the Church, according to scripture, because He establishes the authority of the Church to teach you. So be taught or stand alone.

A Protestant friend who was able to analyze his religion told me that Protestants do indeed think for themselves and the essence of this religion is every man for himself. I decide for me what I shall believe. I will read the scripture and decide what doctrines I shall hold, one at a time, for me. I have the right and authority to be my own authority with the aid of scripture. Scripture does not say this anywhere, but that is what I believe and the only authority over me is scripture and how I interpret it. I reject the pope. I am my own pope. If I do not like what my minister says I will go elsewhere or set up a version of my own religion for those who will agree with me and ordain myself and make myself a pastor, a shepherd of souls. I say the scripture gives me this authority, to divide again and again. Those who came before me did not know truth even though scripture says Jesus promised His Church He would protect her in truth. I know truth. I can read it for myself. Those who come after me can make up their own version and probably will make corrections. They can think for themselves. Why anyone would think this is a recipe for chaos and the destruction of Christian civilization is beyond me. Anyone who disagrees with me and thinks people should accept the teaching of a Church believing those teachings are from Christ can’t think for themselves.

 

[expectthebest]

Teflon93,

You stated this:

*Must=dogma, should = doctrine. That’s what makes dogma dogmatic. *

It is my understanding that Catholics are just as bound to assent to Dontrine (even though not infallible) and they are to assent to Dogma (infallible). Is this not the case? Is it not a mortal sin to no assent to Dontrinal teaching?