How "bad" do you think it is to be a Protestant, especially an Anglican or Baptist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmilyAlexandra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason I mentioned it was that many of us here have seen your list of questions/difficulties/criticisms before. They might be from a Baptist source originally, as the Baptists and their split-offs (SDA etc.) are some of the most vocal anti-Catholic sects.

One very important point to ponder is that not one of those was seriously pondered before the 1500s in Europe. Were prominent Churchmen rather corrupt at that time? Yes! But, one should reform the Church rather than re-invent it.

And, virtually all items on your list are easily demonstrable from the bible. The rest are either implicit, or fall under the power of binding and loosing, which Christ gave to His Church.

I think that many objections will evaporate in reading Catholicism for Dummies. The rest may be overcome via listening to Dr. David Anders on his internet/radio program “Called to Communion.”
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
The reason I mentioned it was that many of us here have seen your list of questions/difficulties/criticisms before. They might be from a Baptist source originally, as the Baptists and their split-offs (SDA etc.) are some of the most vocal anti-Catholic sects.

One very important point to ponder is that not one of those was seriously pondered before the 1500s in Europe. Were prominent Churchmen rather corrupt at that time? Yes! But, one should reform the Church rather than re-invent it.

And, virtually all items on your list are easily demonstrable from the bible. The rest are either implicit, or fall under the power of binding and loosing, which Christ gave to His Church.

I think that many objections will evaporate in reading Catholicism for Dummies. The rest may be overcome via listening to Dr. David Anders on his internet/radio program “Called to Communion.”
Click to expand...
Ok, so you actually agree that prominent Churchmen in 1500 were corrupt in many ways. You have suggested that one should reform the Church rather than re-invent it. Kindly explain how you think that could have been accomplished back then? What should have the reformers tried that they didn’t? In what way did the CC need reforming in your opinion?
 
The “reform” began in the 14th century with such as St. Catherine of Siena, who left Italy, went to Avignon and confronted Pope Gregory XI. Her words pricked his conscience, the results of which are that he moved back to Rome. There are many more examples from the beginning up to today. The point is that the Church is filled with sinners and individual souls that are in need of repentance.

Church doctrine, if we believe Christ, needs no such thing.
 
In 2020, how would the average Catholic go about “reforming the Church” by confronting the sinfulness of individuals? Is that what Taylor Marshall, Church Militant and Lifesite News is endeavoring to accomplish?
 
po18guy said:
The point is that the Church is filled with sinners and individual souls that are in need of repentance.

Church doctrine, if we believe Christ, needs no such thing.
Click to expand...
Our issues is that those “sinners” are the ones who determined Catholic doctrine and deem themselves as infallible. Protestants are “sinners” as well, but we don’t claim faith in individuals or a group of individuals to be infallible. We are all sinners and are all subject to “group think” or influence by others, personal prejudices, and outside influence in particular those who are very good at convincing others they are correct. Those things are true of Billy Graham, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and the Pope.
 
You misunderstand the Church. You apparently also misunderstand Papal infallibility - it is very limited. You’ve been here far too long to claim that you have not been set straight on this!

Here’s an easy one: disprove Christ’s Church by simply showing where her teaching on faith and morals is in error. Please be advised that better men than anyone here have tried and failed for nearing 2,000 years.
 
It occurs to me that there may be similarities between Baptists and Jews. One time when I was visiting my friend at the Baptist college, I was having lunch with her and we were joined by a woman who was training to become a Baptist minister. I naively asked the ordinand, “What does the Baptist Church believe about X?” She explained that, first, there is no “Baptist Church”. There are individual congregations, regional associations, national unions, continental federations, and ultimately the Baptist World Alliance, although many Baptist congregations are affiliated with different organisations or none. Secondly, she explained that every individual congregation determines the beliefs that are held by that congregation. Thirdly, she explained that every individual Baptist is accountable to God alone for their beliefs and choices. Therefore, there is no necessity for Baptist congregations or individual Baptists to be in agreement about contentious issues.

Now, you may be wondering how I think that this could connect with Jews… I recall watching a brilliant TV show called Jews on a Cruise. It may not sound promising, but it was absolutely fascinating. It was, as the name suggests, about a cruise catering specifically for Jewish travellers. A debate arose between two men about the question of whether they were permitted to disembark and re-embark on the Sabbath. One man took the view that as the ship was his home, he was permitted to leave his home and return to his home on the Sabbath. The other man took the view that the ship was a mode of transport and that he was therefore not permitted to leave it and return on the Sabbath. The had both consulted their respective rabbis and had been given different opinions. They agreed that each should be bound by the opinion that they had received from the rabbis they had consulted. Therefore, one of them spent the Sabbath sightseeing, while the other spent the Sabbath aboard the ship. Neither thought that the other was doing anything wrong, as they accepted that both interpretations of the law were equally valid. Ultimately, they concluded that everybody is bound to follow their conscience, even if one person’s conscience tells them to do the opposite of what somebody else’s conscience tells them to do.
 
With all respect Po18guy, you are the one who said the Church should be reformed not re-invented. I asked you to explain how the “reformers” back in the 1500’s could have accomplished that. I have not seen an answer.

You have stated, which you need to do as a Catholic, that the CC is perfect and free from error etc…why would you ever suggest that it needs reform?
 
Both Baptists (Northern variety here) and Jews were also adamant regarding the separation of church and state. It often amazes me that the Southern Baptists are the complete opposite, often trying to get creationism and prayer back in schools and trying to put the Ten Commandments on government property. How I wish the Northern branch would speak up a bit more!

I’m not quite as sure if the Northern Baptists are as agreeable to personal interpretations as the UK are…they might be, I just haven’t heard them discussing this as much.
 
Look up the Catholic reformation aka counter-reformation.

Reform comes via changing hearts, not doctrines.
 
A curious piece of trivia: Regent’s Park College, the Baptist college at Oxford, is unusual in expressly prohibiting the drinking of a toast to the British monarch at formal dinners. Reportedly, some visitors from another college in Oxford were so disgruntled not to have the opportunity to toast the Queen that they proposed the toast themselves and were promptly told to shut up by the college dean!

The college also has a tradition that nobody is allowed to speak in Latin during meals. Legend has it that once upon a time, those who spoke in Latin were carried off and thrown into a bath of cold water. In reality, when an undergraduate studying classics recited a grace in Latin before lunch, another student simply banged on the table and said a grace in English.

This would probably sound unremarkable in the United States, but in Britain (not just at Oxford), grace in Latin and toasting the Queen are standard at formal occasions.
 
As a priest who has worked for many years in the field of ecumenism…I offer the words of Pope Saint John Paul II that well express what should be the sentiment of every Catholic
  1. What has been said above about ecumenical dialogue since the end of the Council inspires us to give thanks to the Spirit of Truth promised by Christ the Lord to the Apostles and the Church (cf. Jn 14:26). It is the first time in history that efforts on behalf of Christian unity have taken on such great proportions and have become so extensive. This is truly an immense gift of God, one which deserves all our gratitude. From the fullness of Christ we receive “grace upon grace” ( Jn 1:16). An appreciation of how much God has already given is the condition which disposes us to receive those gifts still indispensable for bringing to completion the ecumenical work of unity.
An overall view of the last thirty years enables us better to appreciate many of the fruits of this common conversion to the Gospel which the Spirit of God has brought about by means of the ecumenical movement.
  1. It happens for example that, in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, Christians of one confession no longer consider other Christians as enemies or strangers but see them as brothers and sisters. Again, the very expression separated brethren tends to be replaced today by expressions which more readily evoke the deep communion — linked to the baptismal character — which the Spirit fosters in spite of historical and canonical divisions. Today we speak of “other Christians”, “others who have received Baptism”, and “Christians of other Communities”. The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism refers to the Communities to which these Christians belong as “Churches and Ecclesial Communities that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church”.69 This broadening of vocabulary is indicative of a significant change in attitudes. There is an increased awareness that we all belong to Christ. I have personally been able many times to observe this during the ecumenical celebrations which are an important part of my Apostolic Visits to various parts of the world, and also in the meetings and ecumenical celebrations which have taken place in Rome. The “universal brotherhood” of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; scholarships are offered for the training of ministers in the Communities most lacking in resources; approaches are made to civil authorities on behalf of other Christians who are unjustly persecuted; and the slander to which certain groups are subjected is shown to be unfounded.
In a word, Christians have been converted to a fraternal charity which embraces all Christ’s disciples.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
Conversely, however, I have on several occasions read that when Protestants find something with which they disagree in their own denomination, they just start a new denomination.
Click to expand...
To be fair that’s how every Protestant denomination started. You may believe they were right to disagree, but point remains.
EmilyAlexandra said:
describing Anglicanism as “generic”
Click to expand...
Again, to be fair Anglicanism is motley. One parish may believe in Real Presence other may not. One may ordain Female Priest other may be against that. Really it’s a mixup of many beliefs rather than single united Faith. I’m sure Anglicans would agree, perhaps not with my phrasing but with fact Anglicanism isn’t perfectly united in those things.
EmilyAlexandra said:
The Baptists I know are the most tolerant, open-minded people one could hope to meet—sometimes frustratingly so, as it is often hard to pin down what they actually believe about any particular topic. As I understand it, Baptists recognise no higher authority than the local congregation, and they believe in the supremacy of individual conscience.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have almost no experience with Baptists other than internet but generally this fact that Baptists aren’t united in their beliefs is what weirds us Catholics out. We are used to thinking Holy Spirit leads entire Church and to absolute Truth. Belief that two congregations can disagree with each other and be part of same Church is alien to us. We are organizational and hierarchic in structure of our Church. That simply means it’s harder for us to completely get logic of Protestantism.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
this fact that Baptists aren’t united in their beliefs is what weirds us Catholics out. We are used to thinking Holy Spirit leads entire Church and to absolute Truth.
Click to expand...
Catholics have a lot of disagreements and are not united. Should a Catholic vote for Trump or Biden? Do unbaptized infants go to limbo ? Should Catholics support Capital punishment ? Is torture ever justified ? Was slavery justified? Is Mary the co Redemptorist ? Are marriage annulments Catholic divorces in a dishonest sense?
 
AlNg said:
Should a Catholic vote for Trump or Biden? Do unbaptized infants go to limbo ? Should Catholics support Capital punishment ? Is torture ever justified ? Was slavery justified? Is Mary the co Redemptorist ? Are marriage annulments Catholic divorces in a dishonest sense?
Click to expand...
True. I am a Catholic and I have a friend who is Catholic. We can’t agree on which color goes with black better- purple or blue? Which food is best? Is it better if story ends by resolving things or with an open end? Maybe one day we will know…

but as of now and it seems to be undying trend, Catholic Church follows St. Augustine… “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”… and who is better to determine what is essential than Church led by Holy Spirit?
 
You’ve fallen into AINg’s trap card. Prepare to face question about Nicene Creed and whether Eastern Catholic Churches not using Filioque divides us. Don’t worry, hes been educated on that matter in many threads so I suppose he’s just going to test us again…

I’ll tell you, I will miss AINg’s anti-Catholic strawmen that get disproven every time but he never stops trying same ones over and over.
 
po18guy said:
You misunderstand the Church. You apparently also misunderstand Papal infallibility
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about the Pope. I’m talking about the Magisterium. The Cardinals and Bishops are just as fallible as any other humans, whether it be one person or a council.
 
reggieM1 said:
Catholics are united on the Deposit of Faith - via the Nicene Creed
Click to expand...
Not really. The original Nicene creed said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father which is what the Melkite Catholics say and believe and what is written in the Scriptures. John 15:26. The Roman Catholics say and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
 
AlNg said:
Catholics have a lot of disagreements and are not united. Should a Catholic vote for Trump or Biden? Do unbaptized infants go to limbo ? Should Catholics support Capital punishment ? Is torture ever justified ? Was slavery justified? Is Mary the co Redemptorist ? Are marriage annulments Catholic divorces in a dishonest sense?
Click to expand...
Ah but there is a difference here. In such cases this is where faith, trust, and obedience shine. For example. I support capital punishment. However, despite this difference of opinion and out of respect for the Church and the Papacy I will not publicly speak out against the church on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top