How do (most) of your Protestant friends see the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They’re not using the capital C, and for them, it is far more than semantics.

The “c” is a “c” and not a “C”. The word means “universal” by definition.

I meant a friendly explanation without exclamation points. No need to yell. This isn’t a theological argument. I’ve admitted I’m not equipped for that, just sharing what Joe Protestant believes, having been one.

Not exiting stage right here, but I have a retirement ceremony to get dressed for. Didn’t want to give the appearance I was just running away.
 
Last edited:
I was replying to an original comment, which said he considered himself catholic in the original sense.

Prior to the Orthodox/Catholic schism, this “original” sense as he suggested was not, in fact, understood in such a way.

And… I’m not yelling?
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
I was replying to an original comment, which said he considered himself catholic in the original sense.

Prior to the Orthodox/Catholic schism, this “original” sense as he suggested was not, in fact, understood in such a way.
Click to expand...
And I was attempting to shed light on the Protestant view of the word. Not open the theological can of worms. Just what Joe in the pews at First UMC is thinking.
catholic1seeks said:
And… I’m not yelling?
Click to expand...
catholic1seeks said:
That’s fine that they do not mean that!
Click to expand...
It felt like it.
 
Last edited:
You will notice that the definition you have attributed to me is not the definition that I presented, is it? The definition I provided is that I adhere to the apostolic faith as recorded in the scriptures. It is that word that is normative of our faith and doctrine that makes one catholic. Going back to the original sense of the term catholic, we both know the oldest use of the word that we have goes back to ignatius letter to the smyrnaeans. In his letter he implored his readers to do nothing apart from the bishop (overseer) speaking specifically of the Eucharist. Why did he say this? He was using the term catholic as we would use the term orthodox (right teaching) in contrast to sects that had the wrong teaching. The bishop, who oversees the distribution of the sacraments, was charged to ensure he was using the sacrament in part as a means of grace but also to discipline those who might be lured by false teachings such as those offered by docetics and early gnostics. In other words, he was imploring people to go to the bishop to ensure right teaching. But what happens when that bishop engages in heterodox teaching or even heretical teaching? What then? Is one Catholic because they adhere to apostolic succession or adhere to the gospel? What does Paul say in Galatians? “Galatians 1:6-8 ESV
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— [7] not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”. Clearly Paul’s understanding is not blind adherence to apostolic succession but to the gospel. So, what then if the church over centuries adopted beliefs and practices that change the gospel to something not handed down by the apostles? Something such as justification by faith and works which Paul specifically refuted? Or other practices which distract from Christ being our mediator or the sufficiency of his sacrifice or dogmas which actually were derived from gnostic documents that render Christ as less than fully man? The catholic thing to do would be to adhere to the apostolic doctrine rather than some assumed apostolic lineage.
 
Okay cool. We were just speaking past each other.

I’m sure plenty of Protestants use “catholic” in the way you are saying.

But I had issue with the idea that their sense was the “original” sense.
 
catholic1seeks said:
no learned Orthodox would reject that communion with ROME in the early centuries was significant and important to church unity.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Yet it doesn’t seem like they had an issue 1000 years ago forgetting that up until now… assuming thats a fact what you stated.
 
Your hypothetical senario does not correspond to the reality of the time of Ignatius. For even if a bishop went heterodox, as sometimes happened, that would not mean dismissal from the universal, visible Church throughout the world. What would mean this is if that bishop established himself apart from the Church — that would be schism.

Again, I recommend the links regarding the term “Catholic.”

From a Protestant historian:
One Protestant author who is honest about this is the renowned early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, who has written, “As regards Catholic,' its original meaning was universal’ or `general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).
Click to expand...
 
Right, I do not think it’s a consistent position.

But I am Catholic, so hey! I kinda think communion with Rome is important.
 
Do not forget that the definition of Catholic he is referencing was actually derived at Trent, 1400 years after the original use of the term.
 
That is fine in a theorectical sense, but even in the early centuries of the church we see heretical teachings and writings that began that were not dismissed from the church, but came into broader acceptance over time, even centuries later. Things such as teachings derived from such heretical documents as the protoevagelium of John, etc.
 
I fail to see anything in the report which says that the Church condones sexual abuse.

What the report says is that the Church - meaning the bishop in India - has lifted the suspension. That does not mean that he will serve in a parish; but he has the faculties to say Mass.

Further, it is the exceedingly mistaken idea that the Pope micromangaes the Church. He does not. Certainly, the matterr can be brought to the Pope’s attention (or more correctly, to the attention of the dicastery under which this would be handled) and intervention can be sought.

As to the article, it is so lacking in information as to what the bishop in India was/is thinking and doing, that your comment is at the bare minimum overreaching.

Pope Francis has been clear that he will act when there is an issue of abuse. There is no evidence this has even been brought to his attention. There are approximately 390,000+ priests in the world. A bit of perspective and information is helpful.
 
Brittany said:
Most Protestants I know believe that Catholicism is the whore of Babylon. They’re convinced that the Catholic Church teaches idolatry and man-made doctrine.
Click to expand...
Oh my gosh, yes! I experienced that too. Even though my CoC (maternal) grandfather tried to warn me, I didn’t learn until after attending my 4th Protestant church not to tell people I was Catholic. If I did, I got the whole “Catholic Church is the WOB/Pope is the Anti-Christ, idolators, Mary worshippers” spiel.

The pastor of the last Protestant church I attended actually spat in my face as he railed against Catholics and the Catholic Church and told me my mother would be in Heaven with Jesus because she was a Christian and I’d be rotting in Hell because I was Catholic.

He later went on to become the president of the SBC and sadly, never changed his view of Catholics. I still pray for him.
 
lilypadrees said:
The pastor of the last Protestant church I attended actually spat in my face as he railed against Catholics and the Catholic Church and told me my mother would be in Heaven with Jesus because she was a Christian and I’d be rotting in Hell because I was Catholic.
Click to expand...
Please be specific: which type of “Protestant church?
 
Agree with @Brittany. That is vile and that sort of behavior shouldn’t exist in the church- whatever the denomination.
“By their fruit you will recognize them.” Matt 7:16
 
JonNC said:
40.png
lilypadrees:
The pastor of the last Protestant church I attended actually spat in my face as he railed against Catholics and the Catholic Church and told me my mother would be in Heaven with Jesus because she was a Christian and I’d be rotting in Hell because I was Catholic.
Click to expand...
Please be specific: which type of “Protestant church?
Click to expand...
JonNC, I guess you missed my comment that “He later went on to become the president of the SBC…” (That’s “Southern Baptist Convention.”) He was pastor of our Southern Baptist church in the early to mid-70s. Then he and his family moved to another state. He and his wife are celebrating their 53rd wedding anniversary later this year.
 
worships Mary and saints, doesn’t know how to say spontaneous prayers, no “personal” relationship with Jesus, boring services (Mass)
 
Most of them around here view us as various things mainly either weird, or unenlightened rubes.
 
GodSpawned said:
Agree with @Brittany. That is vile and that sort of behavior shouldn’t exist in the church- whatever the denomination.
“By their fruit you will recognize them.” Matt 7:16
Click to expand...
I agree. Pastors are supposed to be a shining example for their congregations. He didn’t set a good example for his by his behavior towards me that day. I was very disappointed and appalled. But I also told myself that he was human and needed prayer in order to change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top