Do Protestants Really Hate Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gookykookypig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gookykookypig

Guest
Just as a lunatic had inherited his lunacy due to he sleeplessness of his or her ancestors during moonlit nights, Protestant new generation admits they hate Catholicism and they won’t accept any word from it.

The cause: Protestant pastors never seem to cease talking about Catholicism. These young Protestants from the Philippines are well bred yet they admit that their animosity to catholicism seems to be like “animosity to Satan Himself”

Rodrigo, a lad from Villaramos, Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, Philippines, had a tete-a-tete talk with Francis Gonzales, your author here, this Sunday, March 8, 2009. He admits that he was born and was raised as a catholic, but because of the seemingly normal “catholic” environment he sullenly experienced from childhood, he was attracted to the Baptist faith which he says is an attractive “novelty” for him.

Yes, he thinks Catholicism is dull and is aging.

Francis Gonzales is a convert to Catholicism. Once a baptist and a member of the locally originated Iglesia ni Cristo sect, this author shared to the misinformed protestant lad about the beauty of Catholicism.

“Only in the catholic church can we see the universal point of view, Christ’s and God’s point of view. I am too much attracted and I want to lean to the porous walls that had witnessed many things in history than to concrete that had seen only paint,” Says he.

Pentecostals her in the city down south of the Philippines had stopped their daily bus missions

The reason, several passengers are annoyed seeing Pentecostals mounting buses only to ask for cash. “It is a very unbecoming act”, says Estrella Cajocon, a resident of a distant town, “that they prioritize ,monetray solicitation rather than preaching.”

Years back, these Pentecostals are the hot preachers of passenger vehicles. Yet because of a Catholic and tolerant majority, they seem to haven’t been appreciated and finally broke down their preaching tasks.

They parted as good friends, promising each other to pray mutually for one’s efforts to perfection.

i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq143/katolikongtunay/visit.gif
 
Just as a lunatic had inherited his lunacy due to he sleeplessness of his or her ancestors during moonlit nights, Protestant new generation admits they hate Catholicism and they won’t accept any word from it.

The cause: Protestant pastors never seem to cease talking about Catholicism. These young Protestants from the Philippines are well bred yet they admit that their animosity to catholicism seems to be like “animosity to Satan Himself”

Rodrigo, a lad from Villaramos, Manukan, Zamboanga del Norte, Philippines, had a tete-a-tete talk with Francis Gonzales, your author here, this Sunday, March 8, 2009. He admits that he was born and was raised as a catholic, but because of the seemingly normal “catholic” environment he sullenly experienced from childhood, he was attracted to the Baptist faith which he says is an attractive “novelty” for him.

Yes, he thinks Catholicism is dull and is aging.

Francis Gonzales is a convert to Catholicism. Once a baptist and a member of the locally originated Iglesia ni Cristo sect, this author shared to the misinformed protestant lad about the beauty of Catholicism.

“Only in the catholic church can we see the universal point of view, Christ’s and God’s point of view. I am too much attracted and I want to lean to the porous walls that had witnessed many things in history than to concrete that had seen only paint,” Says he.

Pentecostals her in the city down south of the Philippines had stopped their daily bus missions

The reason, several passengers are annoyed seeing Pentecostals mounting buses only to ask for cash. “It is a very unbecoming act”, says Estrella Cajocon, a resident of a distant town, “that they prioritize ,monetray solicitation rather than preaching.”

Years back, these Pentecostals are the hot preachers of passenger vehicles. Yet because of a Catholic and tolerant majority, they seem to haven’t been appreciated and finally broke down their preaching tasks.

They parted as good friends, promising each other to pray mutually for one’s efforts to perfection.

i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq143/katolikongtunay/visit.gif
Your thread title is incredibly misleading.

Jon
 
“the word of God is too rich in literature to take literally upon.”

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16**All Scripture is God-breathed **and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

All Scripture comes from God, but we are not to take it literally?

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Jesus is the logos (word) of God. Are we not to take Him or His testimony from others literally?

Your generalization of protestants is simply untrue. The only thing that Protestants (or any other Christian believers) should hate is when denominational doctrine contradicts Scripture. (e.g. not taking the Bible literally.) This is not specific to catholics, but to every Christian denomination.
 
I’m a Protestant (Wesleyen-Arminian/Pentecostal-Holiness background), and I don’t hate Catholics. I disagree strongly with some of the beliefs of Catholicism though. I also do the same with Lutherenism, Calvinism, and several other of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Just because you disagree or even hate a person’s theological beliefs doesn’t mean you hate the person who practice it. I hate Oneness Pentecostalism (because it’s a corruption of my own theology), but I don’t hate Jesus-Only folk.
 
“the word of God is too rich in literature to take literally upon.”
2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
16**All Scripture is God-breathed **and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

All Scripture comes from God, but we are not to take it literally?Where exactly does the Bible say that it is meant to be taken the way you assert that you do?

While we’re on the subject, let’s make sure that we understand the definitions of “literal” vs “literalist” interpretations of scripture.
A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn’t…is that true?
Actually, there is no truth to that, whatsoever. Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense.
The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”
Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey. On the other hand, what if you made a “literalist” interpretation of the phrase, “it’s raining cats and dogs”?
The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.
If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.
Literal, or Catholic, interpretation vs. literalist, or fundamentalist, interpretation.
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
Jesus is the logos (word) of God. Are we not to take Him or His testimony from others literally?
This is a lot closer to the Catholic teaching, but we do indeed take the Bible literally as the quote above shows.
Your generalization of protestants is simply untrue. The only thing that Protestants (or any other Christian believers) should hate is when denominational doctrine contradicts Scripture. (e.g. not taking the Bible literally.)
I agree it’s an inaccurate statement because it’s a generalization. However, we do encounter a great many misinformed individuals (like yourself apparently, based on this last part of your post which infers something that is not the actual Catholic teaching.)
 
Where exactly does the Bible say that it is meant to be taken the way you assert that you do?

While we’re on the subject, let’s make sure that we understand the definitions of “literal” vs “literalist” interpretations of scripture. This is a lot closer to the Catholic teaching, but we do indeed take the Bible literally as the quote above shows.I agree it’s an inaccurate statement because it’s a generalization. However, we do encounter a great many misinformed individuals (like yourself apparently, based on this last part of your post which infers something that is not the actual Catholic teaching.)
Isn’t it a tad arrogant to say that I am misinformed because I dont hold to your beliefs? How are you so blessed that you can change the meaning of the Words of God to explain what He really meant? What I truly don’t understand is how anybody can claim that God couldn’t keep His word perfect no matter how much time is passed.

Cats and dogs may be a cute story (I once stepped in a poodle) But NO other writings are from God’s Heart. If you cant contradict the literal meaning with other Scripture, or find any questions that arise from the original translation, then it means just what it says.

Who has the directive to interpret these “abstract concepts” in God’s Word? The infallible Pope? You may want to research Pope Leo X and Alexander VI before you make that claim. But the most important question I have is "are you saying that the catholic church doctrine is more accurate and succinct than Scripture?

I will not accuse you of being “misinformed” (at least not yet.) But where exactly is your foundation of Biblical Truth, if not the Bible? If you notice, I said “The only thing that Protestants (or any other Christian believers) should hate is when denominational doctrine contradicts Scripture.” It is literally stated in the Bible (see Rev22:18 below, and I stand by this literal proclamation. Mormons have their additions to the Bible, does that mean they are right also?

One last point.
Rev 22:18 written circa 100 A.D. states:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

It seems that a literal view applies.
 
Isn’t it a tad arrogant to say that I am misinformed because I dont hold to your beliefs? How are you so blessed that you can change the meaning of the Words of God to explain what He really meant? What I truly don’t understand is how anybody can claim that God couldn’t keep His word perfect no matter how much time is passed.

Cats and dogs may be a cute story (I once stepped in a poodle) But NO other writings are from God’s Heart. If you cant contradict the literal meaning with other Scripture, or find any questions that arise from the original translation, then it means just what it says.

Who has the directive to interpret these “abstract concepts” in God’s Word? The infallible Pope? You may want to research Pope Leo X and Alexander VI before you make that claim. But the most important question I have is "are you saying that the catholic church doctrine is more accurate and succinct than Scripture?

I will not accuse you of being “misinformed” (at least not yet.) But where exactly is your foundation of Biblical Truth, if not the Bible? If you notice, I said “The only thing that Protestants (or any other Christian believers) should hate is when denominational doctrine contradicts Scripture.” It is literally stated in the Bible (see Rev22:18 below, and I stand by this literal proclamation. Mormons have their additions to the Bible, does that mean they are right also?

One last point.
Rev 22:18 written circa 100 A.D. states:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."


It seems that a literal view applies.
John was talking about the Book of Revelations which he had just written.
The Bible did not exist when he wrote that.
 
I stand corrected. It was regarding the Book of the Revelation, not the Bible.
Do you think that new church doctrine would qualify as a revelation?
 
Your thread title is incredibly misleading.

Jon

It also shows a rather limited knowledge of Protestant attitudes. This is a matter of geography, in part - from what little I’ve read on the Net, it sounds as though attitudes between diffferent Churches in the US are far more fractious than they are in the UK; or probably in most of Europe. Or is the friction in the US found only in certain forms of Christian life in the various Churches ?​

 
I never thought of anything before about the protestants hate on catholics, but when I happened to stumble this on the net, It was then proven that there really is that kind of dilemma. See this link, please!

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2194388/posts
Thanks for the informative link.

Thirty some years ago, a Protestant local welcomed me to town and added this comforting thought. He said that when some of the town’s older Protestants get to heaven, they will be surprised to find Catholics there. Then he winked.

In the time I’ve lived here, the churches, Catholic and Protestant, have joined together in Christ’s ministry to the poor through a cooperative program to provide food and clothing. We’ve joined together in another organization to provide shelter. We join together for days of prayer in front of the court house. We volunteer together to minister to the hospitalized. We stand together as pro-life.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity belongs at the foot of Christ’s cross.
 
Isn’t it a tad arrogant to say that I am misinformed because I dont hold to your beliefs?
Not at all! I disagree with your post and that is what I contend with. That’s not arrogance any more than your view is, which you stated as truth that I challenge.
How are you so blessed that you can change the meaning of the Words of God to explain what He really meant?
And where have I done this? I don’t think I have, but by all means prove your allegation.

Look again at the difference between the definition of literal and literalist interpretations above.
What I truly don’t understand is how anybody can claim that God couldn’t keep His word perfect no matter how much time is passed.
Where have I asserted that God has not done so? In fact, I have not. I have alleged that the interpretations of the “Reformers” and their modern step children have indeed departed from the plain sense of the Word of God in many areas and this is one of them. It has only existed for less than 500 years and has been refuted ever since it came into being.
Cats and dogs may be a cute story (I once stepped in a poodle) But NO other writings are from God’s Heart. If you cant contradict the literal meaning with other Scripture, or find any questions that arise from the original translation, then it means just what it says.
Really? So then you are missing an eye, or hand because of what Our Lord says in Matthew 5:29-30, or do you recommend that to all believers?

I doubt that very much. There is no scripture that will contradict or explain that, so then I submit that your literalist interpretation cannot be the correct one.
Who has the directive to interpret these “abstract concepts” in God’s Word? (I removed irrelevant side argument that does not bear on this debate topic)
But the most important question I have is "are you saying that the catholic church doctrine is more accurate and succinct than Scripture?In fact I am, and for many reasons, not the least of which is the Catholic Church councils that canonized the inspired books of the Word of God. But more relevant, since you value scripture as your authority is the simple and direct statement of St. Paul to St. Timothy in 1st Timothy 3:15 (But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.) If, as you say, the scripture speaks for itself, then you refute your own argument, because it is the scripture which points to the church as the final authority for interpretation of the scriptures and not the other way round. I suggest that you consider this article that may shed light on our differences.
I will not accuse you of being “misinformed” (at least not yet.) But where exactly is your foundation of Biblical Truth, if not the Bible? If you notice, I said “The only thing that Protestants (or any other Christian believers) should hate is when denominational doctrine contradicts Scripture.”
Insofar as it goes I might agree with you except that anyone who knows what you mean (as I did from the outset, and you have proved true by this post) knows that you were inferring that the Catholic faith is one such “denominational doctrine” that “contradicts Scripture”, which is actually contradictory to the facts of both our Catholic doctrines, and the verifiable historic writings of the earliest believers and the New Testament. Case in point.
It is literally stated in the Bible (see Rev 22:18 below, and I stand by this literal proclamation.
(I removed irrelevant side argument that does not bear on this debate topic)
One last point.
Rev 22:18 written circa 100 A.D. states:
“I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
It seems that a literal view applies.
If so, then you have indicted your own religion sir.

But then let’s have a look at some important points (LINK to below. See 2nd letter).
… Virtually the same warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2. If we apply there the same principle that you want to apply in Revelation 22, we have a dilemma, because God would have prohibited the adding of anything to his statutes and decrees as found up to and including the book of Deuteronomy. If that were the case, all subsequent books of the Bible, including the book of Revelation itself, would be proscribed because they were added to the Pentateuch. That means Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Paul and John and all the writers of later books would have the aforementioned dreaded plagues “added unto them” because they added to what was already there.
So what was John really warning us about in Revelation 22? Simple. He had written the book of Revelation as a prophetic document for the edification and guidance of the Church, and he didn’t want it tampered with - nothing added, nothing subtracted. …
 
First of all, I grew up in an environment where the word “hate” was a forbidden word. My language has been hampered ever since.😉

Some Protestants would not dislike Catholicism so much if they realized that scripture was actually integral to Catholic doctrines.
Scripture can be seen as the heart; doctrine as blood. Both are essential for the life of the body. One is never pitted against the other. If either one is missing, the body fails. It is important to understand the relationship of heart and blood.

In a similar manner to blood and heart, doctrine and scripture work as a unit. Trying to figure out if one is more accurate and succinct than the other becomes a debate which eventually distorts the function and purpose of both.

What would you say to this relationship? Scripture contributes accuracy to doctrine and doctrine explains the succinctness of scripture. I’ll leave it to other posters to give real life examples. Note: Protestants also have teachings based on scripture. Thus, the idea of a working relationship applies to them.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings belong at the foot of Christ’s cross.Granny is right! All one needs do is get into the Catechism and look at it with special attention to the wealth in the footnotes.
 
When I was growing up, Mama was Methodist and Daddy was a Jew. It was not the Protestants that hated us. It was the Catholics. They hated us because they said the Jews killed Christ.

Daddy told us that it was the Romans who killed Christ and not to get mad at the little [Daddy was an Archie Bunker so I will not tell you what term he used, although he did not mean it as an insult] because they were only repeating what their parents said.

There were also Catholic children in our neighbourhood who believed Jews had horns.

I never heard anything like this from any of the Protestant kids.
 

It also shows a rather limited knowledge of Protestant attitudes. This is a matter of geography, in part - from what little I’ve read on the Net, it sounds as though attitudes between diffferent Churches in the US are far more fractious than they are in the UK; or probably in most of Europe. Or is the friction in the US found only in certain forms of Christian life in the various Churches ?​

I don’t know about Europe, but I think the fractiousness here in the US is more to do with certain smaller groups, voiced by Chick and the like. Otherwise, except on forums such as this, there is a live and let live attitude.

Jon
 
I don’t know about Europe, but I think the fractiousness here in the US is more to do with certain smaller groups, voiced by Chick and the like. Otherwise, except on forums such as this, there is a live and let live attitude.

Jon

Thanks 🙂

 
I’m a Protestant (Wesleyen-Arminian/Pentecostal-Holiness background), and I don’t hate Catholics. I disagree strongly with some of the beliefs of Catholicism though. I also do the same with Lutherenism, Calvinism, and several other of my brothers and sisters in Christ. Just because you disagree or even hate a person’s theological beliefs doesn’t mean you hate the person who practice it. I hate Oneness Pentecostalism (because it’s a corruption of my own theology), but I don’t hate Jesus-Only folk.
I see your point. Consider this to; My Catholic belief makes up the largest part of me and my fellow bro. and sisters in Christ. If you hate Christ’s presents in my Church, you by default, hate me since I am in Christ. Surely you can see how it appears to us that you hate Catholics.

It would seem that the thing that protestants don’t like about the Church results from the fact that if the Catholic Church is what she says she is, then the need for protestant gatherings, protesting the Catholic Church, falls away and in fact would be not be biblical.

Most of the time the portion of protestants that strongly disagree with the teaching of the Church, don’t understand what the Church teaches. They have developed this strong dislike by the third hand information and misunderstandings of the Church by the uninformed.
 
Thanks for the informative link.

Thirty some years ago, a Protestant local welcomed me to town and added this comforting thought. He said that when some of the town’s older Protestants get to heaven, they will be surprised to find Catholics there. Then he winked.

In the time I’ve lived here, the churches, Catholic and Protestant, have joined together in Christ’s ministry to the poor through a cooperative program to provide food and clothing. We’ve joined together in another organization to provide shelter. We join together for days of prayer in front of the court house. We volunteer together to minister to the hospitalized. We stand together as pro-life.

Blessings,
granny

All humanity belongs at the foot of Christ’s cross.
That’s a good working relationship, granny, and I hope peace be with you always.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top