First of all, the OP suffers from the usual ambiguity about what “Protestantism” means.
Protestantism is a broad historical umbrella term covering groups that either split away from Rome at the end of the Middle Ages or derive from such groups historically. So defined that way, it’s obviously impossible to be a Protestant and a Catholic at the same time. Contrary to what many folks think, the mere name “Protestantism” does not mean that it’s all about protesting Catholicism–the name comes from a very specific political protest and wasn’t the Protestants’ original preferred term for themselves anyway. But the term “Protestant” does most obviously refer to Protestantism as a set of movements defined by their differences with Rome (even if many Protestants don’t sit around thinking about Catholicism much).
The preferred term early Protestants used for themselves was “evangelical.” That’s come to mean something more specific within Protestantism. But in itself it’s a noble term, and I think one
can make a case that one can be an evangelical (in any sense of the word) and a Catholic.
Fr. Louis Bouyer, in
The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, argues that the distinctive Protestant teachings have a positive content, which is compatible with Catholicism, and a negation which isn’t. One can thus be a Catholic and affirm the truth in Protestantism, while not denying any Catholic teaching. Pope Benedict seems to be very much in agreement with this approach, as you can see from his
ecumenical address at Cologne in 2005.
I think that this insight into the positive value of Protestantism lies behind the change in discipline to which I’ve already alluded, a change that many on this forum clearly don’t want to recognize.
If you start with what is wrong with Protestantism and define it by that, then of course it’s a problem for Catholics to participate in Protestant worship. If you take the approach of Fr. Bouyer and Pope Benedict, then it’s obviously appropriate for Catholics to do so as long as they aren’t participating in the specific “negations” that contradict Catholic teaching.
First, do you believe all Catholic doctrine and dogma? If not, then you are not Catholic. The Church has defined that you cannot be a faithful member of the Catholic Church
Surely being a Catholic and being a faithful Catholic are two separate things?
A) Protestants believe that we are justified and saved through our faith alone. Catholics believe that one needs both faith and works in order to be saved.
It’s not that simple. Pretty much all forms of Protestantism find some way of affirming the necessity of works, usually by saying that works are the consequence of true faith. Protestants and Catholics do not generally mean the same things by the word “faith.” Protestants understand by faith something that inevitably includes love. It is Catholics who believe in “faith alone”–that is, they believe that there is a virtue called “faith” which is a gift of God and can exist apart from love. Neither Catholics nor Protestants believe that this kind of faith saves. But Protestants believe that it’s just another kind of opinion of no spiritual value, while Catholics give it a kind of “sub-salvific” value–preparing the way for saving faith which works through love. There are differences here, but they’re much more nuanced than most folks realize.
Of course one cannot affirm “sola fide” in the dogmatic sense and be an orthodox Catholic. But the core of Protestant teaching on this point is the affirmation that we are saved by God’s free grace received by a faith that by its very nature works in love. What is wrong with the Protestant position is not this key affirmation but the Protestant assumption that for this affirmation to hold, the Catholic teaching on the “meritorious” nature of good works wrought in us by the Holy Spirit (and on the other side, the sub-salvific value of “faith alone” or “dead faith”) must be denied.
B) Protestants believe that Scripture alone is the final norm for a Christian. Catholics believe that Scripture alone is not the final norm, and that one needs Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium to properly interpret God’s Word.
Again, if you separate out the positive affirmation here, it is in the authority of Scripture as the written Word of God. What makes the Protestant position heretical is the denial of the authority of Tradition and the Magisterium. One can be a faithful Catholic and hold to the authority of Scripture as firmly as any Protestant.
C) Most Protestants only recognize two rituals that can be considered sacraments: Baptism and Communion. Catholics, on the other hand, recognize seven sacraments: Baptism, Communion, Penance, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Marriage, and Anointing of the Sick.
Right. But as the CCC shows by the way it structures its discussion of the sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist are the two central sacraments–in traditional language, they are “generally necessary for salvation” in a way that the other five aren’t. Protestants were not wrong to seek to emphasize these two. They were wrong to deny the others.
The “symbolic” view of the sacraments held by the majority of Protestants stems from a desire to affirm the importance of faith in receiving grace from the sacraments–a focus on the res over the signum, in overreaction to the perceived medieval “superstition” with regard to the signum. This willingness to throw out a generally sacramental (or even “magical”) approach to the world is perhaps the single biggest flaw in Protestantism as a whole, and the most obvious conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism (often obscured by the supposedly more fundamental issues of sola fide and sola scriptura). But
if you can show Protestants that their key concerns (about not losing the “reality” in the “sign”) are respected, many of them are willing to listen to a more sacramental approach. For many Protestants who hold to a “symbolic” view, the practice of baptism and Eucharist is an irritant in their generally spiritualizing approach to the Faith. They know they have to do these rituals, but they aren’t quite sure why. Catholics can help them understand why–if Catholics will stop framing everything in terms of some supposed absolute opposition between Catholic truth and Protestant error and recognize the valid concerns Protestants have underneath their errors.
The same is true for the other issues you mention, most of which boil down to Protestant concerns to keep the faith focused on Jesus and on the salvation brought by Jesus. Protestants need to understand that these things don’t have to be seen in “either/or” terms. But their resolute Christocentrism is of great value for Christianity as a whole–it’s not something that should simply be thrown out as error.
Edwin
S you intentionally twisted the message by cherry picking the verse to fit your argument? “I didn’t quote it because i wished to show… and PREFER TO be concise”. Sorry, it doesn’t matter what you prefer or how you want God to say because in full context it shows that a relationship with God and other people are the only things that are important. I’m not going to argue with you anymore after this last sentence of yours brother.