What Catholics believe about Prostestants

[BMSODM]

This is not an area where we disagree much so I am not really sure why you’re bringing it up.

Ive brought it up because Its the catholic church who protected the Truth through the dark ages as well as since the very beginning. So if God allowed the catholics to preserve the TRUTH then why would you question it now?

 

[Steadfast]

Ive brought it up because Its the catholic church who protected the Truth through the dark ages as well as since the very beginning. So if God allowed the catholics to preserve the TRUTH then why would you question it now?

We don’t deny this. The Reformation really wasn’t about this.

 

[Metaron]

Not “our” Church. “His” Church. And if you check Catholic theology on this, you will see that the Church acknowledges that all who call upon the Name of Jesus Christ are to some degree united with the Church, albeit imperfectly.

Think of it this way: there is one Church with two aspects: the Institutional, and the Mystical. The institutional aspect is visible. The mystical is invisible, including all people that have been validly baptized. They are like two overlapping circles, but are ultimately the same Church. No one with a valid baptism is really “outside” the Church, as baptism is the Church’s Sacrament. Those people are implicitly members (unbeknownst to them) of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[BMSODM]

We don’t deny this. The Reformation really wasn’t about this.

Its not what it was about, or the intensions of Luther that concerns me. Its about the fruit that came from it that concerns me. I keep going back to the bible because I feel this is critical if we ever want to obtain the true teachings.

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity? No.

The Protestants accepted the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century. Why accept the Canon as defined and preserved by the Catholic Church yet not accept the other teachings of this same Church?

It seems to me that the reform rejects the rock the church was built on but claims there the rock which the church is built on. It doesnt have any logic behind it… How can we say YES the catholic preserved the scriptures then in the same breath say they dont know the scriptures?

 

[SyCarl]

Its not what it was about, or the intensions of Luther that concerns me. Its about the fruit that came from it that concerns me. I keep going back to the bible because I feel this is critical if we ever want to obtain the true teachings.

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity? No.

The Protestants accepted the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century. Why accept the Canon as defined and preserved by the Catholic Church yet not accept the other teachings of this same Church?

It seems to me that the reform rejects the rock the church was built on but claims there the rock which the church is built on. It doesnt have any logic behind it… How can we say YES the catholic preserved the scriptures then in the same breath say they dont know the scriptures?

There is no contradiction in saying that the Catholic Church was able to preserve the Scripture but has made mistakes in other areas. I thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible. However because it has done some things right does not mean it has not done some things wrong. I don’t believe any church organization can claim infallibility.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is no contradiction in saying that the Catholic Church was able to preserve the Scripture but has made mistakes in other areas. I thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible. However because it has done some things right does not mean it has not done some things wrong. I don’t believe any church organization can claim infallibility.

IF you do not believe no Church organization claims to be infallible then how can you rely on the Bible as being infallible itself? The Church declare the Bible to be inspired.

 

[Metaron]

…However because it has done some things right does not mean it has not done some things wrong. I don’t believe any church organization can claim infallibility.

Then I guess we can never know on some issues (embyonic stem-cell research, life beginning at conception, contraception, just-war doctrine, masturbation, human cloning, or animal cloning) whether or not we’re committing a mortal sin (A sin endangering our Eternal Salvation) because their are no explicit, or in some cases, even implicit, references to these things in the Bible. And if there is not infallible Church to tell you, and the Bible doesn’t mention them, then, how can you know the answer to whether these things are sinful or not???

 

[mozart-250]

It depends. If there are any AOG here feel free to correct me. If the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is exactly the way the Left Behind Series go, I would reject it fully.

I do believe in a Second Coming of Jesus Christ. I don’t believe he will literally reign 1,000 yrs and then leave us. The Scripture often said that the Reign of Christ is for all eternity. It doesn’t end.

The second coming of that statement of faith is ambiguous. It could be the “Left Behind” second coming. Then it also could be a post-tribulational second coming which is more similar to Catholicism. I take it by that statement of faith that AOG churches are allowed to differ somewhat on the details of the second coming.

 

[SyCarl]

Then I guess we can never know on some issues (embyonic stem-cell research, life beginning at conception, contraception, just-war doctrine, masturbation, human cloning, or animal cloning) whether or not we’re committing a mortal sin (A sin endangering our Eternal Salvation) because their are no explicit, or in some cases, even implicit, references to these things in the Bible. And if there is not infallible Church to tell you, and the Bible doesn’t mention them, then, how can you know the answer to whether these things are sinful or not???

First, I would assert that any sin is worthy of God’s wrath. There is no distinction between mortal or venial sins in that way. We must apply our reason and pray for guidance in doing what is right. The Church can help us in deciding what is right or wrong but it is not infallible. I don’t think we are capable of knowing every time we sin. We do not always know we are sinning.

However using reason in interpretting Scripture can help us to the right decision. When does life begin? If we don’t know then don’t do anything that could potentially affect life such as abortion or stem cell research. Then ask God for forgiveness if we make mistakes.

 

[mercygate]

First, I would assert that any sin is worthy of God’s wrath. There is no distinction between mortal or venial sins in that way.

If a Catholic had brought this up it would have been a response to the OP. Indeed, one thing Catholics believe about Protestants is that they fail to distinguish mortal from venial sin despite I John 5:16.

Agreed: ALL sin is a BIG deal. You nuance your observation more subtly than most Protestants.

We must apply our reason and pray for guidance in doing what is right. The Church can help us in deciding what is right or wrong but it is not infallible. I don’t think we are capable of knowing every time we sin. We do not always know we are sinning.

I don’t think this is a Catholic/Protestant divider since knowledge is part of what constitutes mortal sin for Catholics and invincible ignorance mitigates the culpability. It does seem that Catholic moral theology gives a lot more thought and then pastoral direction regarding moral decisions. As a Catholic, I would say we tend to think that much of Protestantism flies by a read-the-Bible-and-pray-for-guidance manifesto. Or if-it’s-not-in-the-Bible-it’s-not-a-sin (e.g., contraception). So back to the OP, we would have the impression that often there is little pastoral guidance in the Protestant world. This is often disparagingly described as “every man his own Pope”.

However using reason in interpretting Scripture can help us to the right decision.

Uh-huh.

When does life begin? If we don’t know then don’t do anything that could potentially affect life such as abortion or stem cell research. Then ask God for forgiveness if we make mistakes.

 

[jmcrae]

There is no contradiction in saying that the Catholic Church was able to preserve the Scripture but has made mistakes in other areas. I thank the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible. However because it has done some things right does not mean it has not done some things wrong. I don’t believe any church organization can claim infallibility.

So, what makes the Church unquestioningly trustworthy with regard to the New Testament Bible, but completely untrustworthy on every other issue (including the Old Testament Bible)?

 

[Mannyfit75]

The second coming of that statement of faith is ambiguous. It could be the “Left Behind” second coming. Then it also could be a post-tribulational second coming which is more similar to Catholicism. I take it by that statement of faith that AOG churches are allowed to differ somewhat on the details of the second coming.

The Catholic end times which we refer as the Last Four Things, Death, Judgement, Heaven, and Hell.

Death: which consists in the separation of soul and body, is presented under many aspects in Catholic teaching, but chiefly as being actually and historically, in the present order of supernatural Providence, the consequence and penalty of Adam’s sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12, etc.); as being the end of man’s period of probation, the event which decides his eternal destiny (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 9:4; Luke 12:40; 16:19 sqq.; etc.), though it does not exclude an intermediate state of purification for the imperfect who die in God’s grace; and as being universal, though as to its absolute universality (for those living at the end of the world) there is some room for doubt because of I Thess., iv, 14 sqq.; I Cor., xv, 51; II Tim., iv, 1.

Particular Judgment:

That a particular judgment of each soul takes place at death is implied in many passages of the New Testament (Luke 16:22 sqq.; 23:43; Acts 1:25; etc.), and in the teaching of the Council of Florence (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 588) regarding the speedy entry of each soul into heaven, purgatory, or hell.

Heaven is the abode of the blessed, where (after the resurrection with glorified bodies) they enjoy, in the company of Christ and the angels, the immediate vision of God face to face, being supernaturally elevated by the light of glory so as to be capable of such a vision. There are infinite degrees of glory corresponding to degrees of merit, but all are unspeakably happy in the eternal possession of God. Only the perfectly pure and holy can enter heaven; but for those who have attained that state, either at death or after a course of purification in purgatory, entry into heaven is not deferred, as has sometimes been erroneously held, till after the General Judgment.

Hell, in Catholic teaching, designates the place or state of men (and angels) who, because of sin, are excluded forever from the Beatific Vision. In this wide sense it applies to the state of those who die with only original sin on their souls (Council of Florence, Denzinger, no. 588), although this is not a state of misery or of subjective punishment of any kind, but merely implies the objective privation of supernatural bliss, which is compatible with a condition of perfect natural happiness. But in the narrower sense in which the name is ordinarily used, hell is the state of those who are punished eternally for unrepented personal mortal sin. Beyond affirming the existence of such a state, with varying degrees of punishment corresponding to degrees of guilt and its eternal or unending duration, Catholic doctrine does not go. It is a terrible and mysterious truth, but it is clearly and emphatically taught by Christ and the Apostles. Rationalists may deny the eternity of hell in spite of the authority of Christ, and professing Christians, who are unwilling to admit it, may try to explain away Christ’s words; but it remains as the Divinely revealed solution of the problem of moral evil. (See HELL.) Rival solutions have been sought for in some form of the theory of restitution or, less commonly, in the theory of annihilation or conditional immortality. The restitutionist view, which in its Origenist form was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543, and later at the Fifth General Council (see APOCATASTASIS), is the cardinal dogma of modern Universalism, and is favoured more or less by liberal Protestants and Anglicans. Based on an exaggerated optimism for which present experience offers no guarantee, this view assumes the all-conquering efficacy of the ministry of grace in a life of probation after death, and looks forward to the ultimate conversion of all sinners and the voluntary disappearance of moral evil from the universe. Annihilationists, on the other hand, failing to find either in reason or Revelation any grounds for such optimism, and considering immortality itself to be a grace and not the natural attribute of the soul, believe that the finally impenitent will be annihilated or cease to exist – that God will thus ultimately be compelled to confess the failure of His purpose and power.

 

[Mannyfit75]

((Here is a Catholic view on End Times)

The Approach of the End of the World

Notwithstanding Christ’s express refusal to specify the time of the end (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:6 sq.), it was a common belief among early Christians that the end of the world was near. This seemed to have some support in certain sayings of Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which are set down in the Gospels side by side with prophecies relating to the end (Matthew 24; Luke 21), and in certain passages of the Apostolic writings, which might, not unnaturally, have been so understood (but see 2 Thessalonians 2:2 sqq., where St. Paul corrects this impression). On the other hand, Christ had clearly stated that the Gospel was to be preached to all nations before the end (Matthew 24:14), and St. Paul looked forward to the ultimate conversion of the Jewish people as a remote event to be preceded by the conversion of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25 sqq.). Various others are spoken of as preceding or ushering in the end, as a great apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3 sqq.), or falling away from faith or charity (Luke 18:8; 17:26; Matthew 24:12), the reign of Antichrist, and great social calamities and terrifying physical convulsions. Yet the end will come unexpectedly and take the living by surprise.

The Resurrection of the Body

The visible coming (parousia) of Christ in power and glory will be the signal for the rising of the dead (see RESURRECTION). It is Catholic teaching that all the dead who are to be judged will rise, the wicked as well as the Just, and that they will rise with the bodies they had in this life. But nothing is defined as to what is required to constitute this identity of the risen and transformed with the present body. Though not formally defined, it is sufficiently certain that there is to be only one general resurrection, simultaneous for the good and the bad. (See MILLENNIUM.) Regarding the qualities of the risen bodies in the case of the just we have St. Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 15 (cf. Matthew 13:43; Philippians 3:21) as a basis for theological speculation; but in the case of the damned we can only affirm that their bodies will be incorruptible.

The General Judgment

Regarding the general judgment there is nothing of importance to be added here to the graphic description of the event by Christ Himself, who is to be Judge (Matthew 25, etc.). (See JUDGMENT, GENERAL.)

The Consummation of All Things

There is mention also of the physical universe sharing in the general consummation (2 Peter 3:13; Romans 8:19 sqq.; Revelation 21:1 sqq.). The present heaven and earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth take their place. But what, precisely, this process will involve, or what purpose the renovated world will serve is not revealed. It may possibly be part of the glorious Kingdom of Christ of which “there shall be no end”. Christ’s militant reign is to cease with the accomplishment of His office as Judge (1 Corinthians 15:24 sqq.), but as King of the elect whom He has saved He will reign with them in glory forever.

I don’t know if Protestant also believe in this End Times Catholic view. I guess they can judge for themselves.

 

[SyCarl]

So, what makes the Church unquestioningly trustworthy with regard to the New Testament Bible, but completely untrustworthy on every other issue (including the Old Testament Bible)?

I did not say that the Church is completely untrustworthy on every other issue. However that does not mean they are not in error on some things.

Why do I not trust the Church in everything? Part of it is because by changing a discipline they change what is regarded as sin. For example, at one time it was a mortal sin to eat meat on any Friday. Now it is only during Lent and some other special times. So two people living at different times can do exactly the same thing and one has sinned but the other hasnt? I cannot accept that. What offends God does not change in that way. Similarly at one time a Catholic could not be married in a Protestant church. Now they can with a dispensation. So somebody who was married in a Protestant church 100 years ago is guilty of adultery but the one who does so today isn’t? God doesn’t change and what is sin doesn’t change in that way.

I do not trust tradition (or Tradition) as being infallible. Yes, Paul does say to the Thessalonians to follow the tradition he gave them. In other places he tells us to beware of man made traditions. Jesus himself tells us not to transgress God’s commandments through our traditions. I feel that the Catholic Church’s doctrine with respect to annulments does just that. We are told that what God has joined let no man separate. But by tradition we make that void by saying that we can pretend that they were never really joined.

These are just some examples with respect to the Catholic Church. As I said, I believe that all churches have some things that are wrong in what they teach. However it is only the Catholic Church that claims to be infallible.

 

[mozart-250]

I don’t know if Protestant also believe in this End Times Catholic view. I guess they can judge for themselves.

Well looking at AOG #13, it uses the term rapture which Catholicism does not use. However the term rapture is just shorthand for 1 Thess 4:13-18 which I understand Catholicism believes in.

AOG #14 describes what is called millenialism, a 1000 year period where Christ reigns on earth. I think the basis for this belief is in Revelation, but I could be wrong. But there are those of us who amillenialists who believe the 1000 year period in Revelation is symbolic. I think there are also postmillenialists which believe it has already happened.

As far as AOG #13, there are three branches which we divide which are all compatable with this statement. There are the pre-tribulationalists, mid-tribulationalists, and post-tribulationalists. The pre-tribulationalists are the largest and are typified by “Left Behind”. The post-tribulationalists I think are the closest to Catholicism. They believe that at the end of the tribulation that believers will be caught up to meet Christ in the air, and immediately Christ returns to earth with His church. At this point the millenium begins.

As you can see, there is disagreement concerning how the end of the age plays out. That having been said, very few of us consider this an essential…meaning that we are at liberty to disagree…but we all of course tend to think of ourselves as right and everyone else wrong.

As for me I am a pan-millenialists and pan-tribulationalist. Meaning that if I am where I should be with the Lord Jesus Christ, the end of the age will pan out.

 

[jmcrae]

I did not say that the Church is completely untrustworthy on every other issue. However that does not mean they are not in error on some things.

Why do I not trust the Church in everything? Part of it is because by changing a discipline they change what is regarded as sin. For example, at one time it was a mortal sin to eat meat on any Friday. Now it is only during Lent and some other special times. So two people living at different times can do exactly the same thing and one has sinned but the other hasnt?

First, the discipline on Friday abstinence from meat hasn’t changed - it is still the norm of the Church. The only thing that has changed with regard to that is that, outside of Lent, one may substitute some other kind of penance on Fridays in the place of abstinence from meat. All Fridays of the year are still days of penance, however.

Second, even if the discipline had been completely removed, the sin in the first case is not the eating of the meat, but the failure to obey legitimate authority.

If they change the speed limit on your street, do they have to throw out every court case based on the previous law? No - the traffic laws change with the needs of the community. It’s the same with the disciplines of the Church - they can change according to the needs of the people of the Church.

I cannot accept that. What offends God does not change in that way.

What offends God has nothing to do with the meat; it is the disobedience to the authorities that He has set in place over us.

Similarly at one time a Catholic could not be married in a Protestant church. Now they can with a dispensation. So somebody who was married in a Protestant church 100 years ago is guilty of adultery but the one who does so today isn’t? God doesn’t change and what is sin doesn’t change in that way.

At one time, a Catholic would have had to go out of his way a considerable distance in order to meet and marry a Protestant. The change in discipline has to do with the change in social circumstances.

I feel that the Catholic Church’s doctrine with respect to annulments does just that. We are told that what God has joined let no man separate. But by tradition we make that void by saying that we can pretend that they were never really joined.

So, if someone marries his sister, or someone goes into a marriage thinking that he will take on the role of parent or child with regard to his partner, or if he thinks he is buying a slave or a punching bag, you would say that God considers it a sacramental marriage? Or would you admit that there are some partnerships that cannot be considered “marriages,” even though they may have been contracted in a church or in front of a judge?

(What about same-sex marriages? Are they bound for life, too?)

 

[dparker]

WE BELIEVE…the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a Special Experience Following Salvation that empowers believers for witnessing and effective service, just as it did in New Testament times. [1 of 4 cardinal doctrines of the A/G]

We believe that Baptism effectively washes away both original and actual sin. It is the first Sacrament of the Church, and opens the way to all of the other Sacraments.

Just to clarify. (I was AOG for years) The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not referring to water baptism. For AOG, this refers to a second subsequent work of grace that empowers the believer for service and power. It is a specific spiritual experience that is usually a significant milestone in one’s life. Acts 2:4, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:1-6,

I could be wrong, but I believe it is similar in theory to what Catholics call ‘confirmation’.

All in all, I am impressed with how many of the AOG core doctrines are in agreement. There is much that unifies us.

And as somebody else has said…the last few are not essential matters of faith. What will be will be and since we see through a glass darkly, it’s possible that we all may be a bit wrong with how this age is consumated.

 

[Steadfast]

During the Reformation, did the Protestants “re-evaluate” all the deutero-canonical and apocryphal Christian writings such as the Gospel of St. James, the Acts of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. Peter, the Gospel of St. Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of St. Thomas and the myriad of other writings from the first and second centuries of the Christianity? No.

The Protestant canon didn’t appear out of thin air. We’ve had this conversation until I am quite tired of it.

Until your church solemnly defined its canon at Trent, scholars were free to question the full canonicity of the Deutero-Canonicals. Until this time the canon Trent eventually ratified was certainly the majority canon with a great deal of precedent to its credit but the dissenting view was gathering impetus.

The Protestants accepted the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century. Why accept the Canon as defined and preserved by the Catholic Church yet not accept the other teachings of this same Church?

Because, again, the question of the OT canon was still open for scholarly debate.

It seems to me that the reform rejects the rock the church was built on but claims there the rock which the church is built on. It doesnt have any logic behind it… How can we say YES the catholic preserved the scriptures then in the same breath say they dont know the scriptures?

The Reformation recognizes that Christ is the Lord of the Church in every age and that it is He Who preserves and sustains it even as it is He who raises up men to reform it.

I never said the Catholic Church didn’t know the Bible. I don’t know where that’s coming from.

 

[Steadfast]

((Here is a Catholic view on End Times)

The Approach of the End of the World

(snip)

I don’t know if Protestant also believe in this End Times Catholic view. I guess they can judge for themselves.

Lutherans would tend to agree substantially with everything you said.

 

[cascherman]

Please note that I said Protestants err when they divide over nonessentials, and “feelings” are non-essentials.

The real difference is over the insistence that the church is essentially an institution and the idea that it is essentially a community, a communion of saints.

It certainly is an institution, but the RCC errs when it emphasizes this over communion and it does exactly this when it castigates its separated brethren over their fragmentation.

I wasn’t aware there is a such thing as a non-essential doctrine. Is that taught in the Bible?

As John Martignoni would say, "If someone tells you there is essential and non-essential doctrines ask for their Bible, flip around in the front, then a little in the back, and then after looking discouraged say “Hmm, seems there isn’t a table for essential and non-essential doctrine in here.” "

Point being, essential and non-essentials is not biblical.