What Catholics believe about Prostestants

[Metaron]

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.

They disagree on baptismal regeneration, trinitarianism (i.e, “oneness” Pentecostals, modalists) and numerous other items I think most would consider “essential”. Besides, who decides what is essential and what is not?

 

[Steadfast]

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.

Tell that to ol’ “In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty and all things charity” Augustine.

But here’s the thing “nonessential” does NOT mean unimportant or irrelevant.

It just means things about which we are seeking more light.

Your church admits this when it refuses to definitively outline eschatology or when it refrains from pronouncing this or that apparition legitimate or when it permits baptism by immersion, affusion or aspersion.

 

[cascherman]

Tell that to ol’ “In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty and all things charity” Augustine.

But here’s the thing “nonessential” does NOT mean unimportant or irrelevant.

It just means things about which we are seeking more light.

Your church admits this when it refuses to definitively outline eschatology or when it refrains from pronouncing this or that apparition legitimate or when it permits baptism by immersion, affusion or aspersion.

I think it would be interesting to put that quote from Augustine in context. I would be willing to bet he is talking about the disciplines (how we behave to honor God) of our faith as opposed to doctrine, for example, the meaning and/or the necessity of baptism. So, due to my interest I wouldn’t mind hearing what Augustine was talking about in that quote. Have a reference page?

As for the last paragraph, the CC chooses not to define the the end times. This though is not comparable to defining a doctrine that disagrees with another group and yet still consider us all one Church. Not quite the same, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[cascherman]

Tell that to ol’ “In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty and all things charity” Augustine.

Interesting, it seems that quote is in heated contention of whether Augustine even said that. So, not only can the context of that quote not be applied to your use of it, but Augustine’s original document where this was used cannot even be found . Not quite convincing.

interesting article on that subject

In addition, one of the most used versions of that quote that I could find was:

St. Augustine says:
In necessariis unitas,
In essentials unity,
In dubiis libertas,
In doubtful things liberty,
In omnibus autem caritas,
But in all things love.

source

Say these truly were Augustine’s words, which no one can quite substantiate, it seems a far stretch to attribute the word ‘non-essential’ to ‘doubtful’.

Sounds like one of those quotes that ping pongs around in the protestant apologetics world with no real firm proof of authorship. Maybe you have more information on this, but that is just how it seems to me.

 

[cascherman]

and sure enough, dubiis translates to doubtful or to hesitate. Kind of like the *liberty *given by the CC to us on many non-defined items.

 

[Steadfast]

and sure enough, dubiis translates to doubtful or to hesitate. Kind of like the *liberty *given by the CC to us on many non-defined items.

And that is EXACTLY the same liberty I am talking about.

It would appear (AGAIN) to be one of those things your church is free to do but mine is not.

Which causes me to chuckle.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I also absolutely feel that Catholics are Christians.

thats nice. then it is true that you & catholics belong to the same universal church. as the other guy said, ‘whether you like it or not’.

 

[jmcrae]

And that is EXACTLY the same liberty I am talking about.

It would appear (AGAIN) to be one of those things your church is free to do but mine is not.

Which causes me to chuckle.

We are not free to disagree on doctrines that have been settled by the authority of the Church; I think that’s what St. Augustine (assuming it was him) meant by “necessary things.”

The virginity of Mary, for example, is not a “doubtful” thing; it is a doctrine of the Church, and thus, a “necessary thing.”

You can’t start with the disagreements, and then say, “Well, some people disagree on this; therefore, it must be a non-essential.” If we go down that road, then everything becomes non-essential, and there is nothing left of Christianity except a bunch of people holding personal opinions that they should keep private, and are not invited to share with others.

Instead, you have to start with what has been formally defined by the Church, and work from there. Those who disagree with settled doctrine are not part of the unity of the Church, no matter how many times they claim that the doctrines they disagree with are “non-essential.” It just doesn’t work like that.

 

[Metaron]

And that is EXACTLY the same liberty I am talking about.

It would appear (AGAIN) to be one of those things your church is free to do but mine is not.

Which causes me to chuckle.

Then again, we Catholics don’t have little fragmenting groups contending all these little points. :cofferead:

 

[BMSODM]

I know this is off topic but are there any good catholic links on the old debate Once saved always saved? On my other site its all protestants and Im constantly having them attack me for everything I say. This topic though requires lots of scripture and I dont have time to go through it all, so I was wondering if there is a link just on this topic that defends the catholic stance? Any help would be greatly apprecieted…My site is Holypal.com you should check it out, all are welcome and we dont ban people just because they preach catholicism, like most the protestant sites…

 

[vocatio]

You know…reading this thread got me to thinking. On topic of course. What do I think about “Protestants”. First, I find the term Protestant to be derogatory in use by some…the same way that non-Catholics use the term RCC or Catholic…like its a dirty word or something.

The part about Mary’s perpetual virginity seems obvious that if we return to the “early Church” beliefs we would find that this was always taught. Don’t you think that if the [Catholic] Church wanted to promote Mary’s Virginity they would have removed it from the scriptures, as is presumed by so many non- or ex-Catholics. Don’t you think they were much smarter than that? These men were genius. One would have to presume that the Church leaders were dummer than dirt to fail to catch this flaw. These men were insanely devoted to knowing scripture.

Further, it is obvious that the canon of scripture was thrown out with the Protestant Reformation, the cause of which led directly to picking the Church apart bit by bit until we have so many different flavors of Christianity. Some “Protestants” actually believe that they are the “true Church” established by Christ. I know that the “Church of Christ” [Alexander - Stone church restoration movement] does believe this as do many others. I grew up in a mixed hostile religious home. I know many of the differences in that flavor of Christian living complared to my more recent Church of Christ flavor of Christianity. My own family is responsible for starting a Church about 2 or 3 generations ago in Louisiana among the enormously large Catholic population. That’s how mom met my very traditional Catholic father. They were never meant to be together I assure you. Things are so mixed up between my 2 families that I’ve had to maintain a comfortable distance. Sadly even Catholics are knuckleheads. We all need catechesis.

 

[vocatio]

Oh yea. My entire family swam the tiber this past year. I went to the seminary and still got things wrong. Given the right situation at particular weak moments in our lives, not to mention the bad examples out there, anybody can fall into division, whether by igorance or full knowledge of understanding.

No one can leave a Church because a bunch or a few knuckleheads set bad examples. St. Francis of Assisi is known for saying “Preach the gospel always and when necessary use words”. Well, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Let’s remember that as we knock each other over the head. Listen and understand. I see “Protestants” as being a varied group of Christians with mixed up concepts though well meaning for the most part…People are people no matter where you go. Environment plays a huge role in our perceptions. But we need to try to see things more clearly. It’s a wonder that so many people claim to be bible believing Christians but do not pronounce the “Blessed Mother” as the “Mother of God”…not the creator of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s theology. What about all the other scriptures that are obviously Catholic. John 6, the Eucharist. This was the fundamental problem I had with solo scriptura. Even Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions and teachings he passed down. That’s not little “t” tradition, it’s big “T” tradition. I used to get this mixed up. I used to believe that all Catholics were going to hell, too. And if I can unlearn the ignorance taught me growing up, anybody can.

 

[Steadfast]

Vocatio,

I have a completely different read on things (not surprisingly).

Scholarship in Sacred Scripture is a fairly new phenomenon (late middle ages).

It is one thing to be a devotional user of the Bible and quite another to be a student of it.

I believe the church fathers were, by and large and with certain important exceptions (e.g. Augustine), devotional users of the Bible. They, effectively, paid more attention to some parts than others (e.g. the Psalms and the Gospels) because these were the most devotionally fruitful, or at least they thought they were.

The idea of a distinctly biblical theology is also fairly new. With Aquinas we get the assumption that human reason, aided by philosophical insight can apprehend certain truths about God.

With the Scholastics the Bible is not so much source material as it is proof-text. It’s culled for buttress material.

This is completely different than the modern view which, I’m sorry to say, has as much to do with the Reformation period as anything else. The period saw the largest single jump in textual variation and awareness and scholarship that we have ever seen.

For the first time it became a specific area of scholarly discipline taught as such in Universities.

I do not believe most of the church fathers were bible scholars in the sense that we would understand that. I believe they loved the Bible, but they loved some parts more than others and were more heirs of a Greek philosophical tradition than they were of a specifically biblical outlook. For them the Bible was either a devotional text or it was a field for mining support for conclusions drawn largely elsewhere.

Some of their mariological ideas are good examples of this. Frankly, it just didn’t matter what a full reading of the Bible gave them, they didn’t read it didactically.

They simply didn’t see it as a field of study.

 

[Metaron]

Oh yea. My entire family swam the tiber this past year. I went to the seminary and still got things wrong. Given the right situation at particular weak moments in our lives, not to mention the bad examples out there, anybody can fall into division, whether by igorance or full knowledge of understanding.

No one can leave a Church because a bunch or a few knuckleheads set bad examples. St. Francis of Assisi is known for saying “Preach the gospel always and when necessary use words”. Well, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Let’s remember that as we knock each other over the head. Listen and understand. I see “Protestants” as being a varied group of Christians with mixed up concepts though well meaning for the most part…People are people no matter where you go. Environment plays a huge role in our perceptions. But we need to try to see things more clearly. It’s a wonder that so many people claim to be bible believing Christians but do not pronounce the “Blessed Mother” as the “Mother of God”…not the creator of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s theology. What about all the other scriptures that are obviously Catholic. John 6, the Eucharist. This was the fundamental problem I had with solo scriptura. Even Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions and teachings he passed down. That’s not little “t” tradition, it’s big “T” tradition. I used to get this mixed up. I used to believe that all Catholics were going to hell, too. And if I can unlearn the ignorance taught me growing up, anybody can.

Good post. I;m still praying for my family to swim the Tiber too!

 

[mlchance]

A lot of you claim that what I am posting is not the truth about Catholicism but I see grave errors, assumptions and sweeping generalizations (all protestants, etc.) about Protestants made by many of you.

Point taken. Of course, it perhaps merits remembering that when it comes to the beliefs of the various Protestant churches, it’s pretty much anything goes. Therefore, just about any statement about Protestant belief in general is going to end of false as often it is true.

(BTW: I’ve probably studied Catholicism longer than some of you)

Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean you’ve understood what you’ve studied.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Steadfast]

Which, to my mind, calls into question the whole “Material Sufficiency” idea so much beloved of Catholics…

When we consider that the foundations of her theological outlook are based much more in her experience as the heir to classical thought (as strained as that may have eventually become) than in any idea of biblical scholarship (an anachronism) then the whole idea that every Catholic doctrine can be seen in seed form in the Bible becomes a bit nonsensical, or, at least unnecessary.

And I have to wonder why this is. Undoubtedly it is due to the common experience of the the late middle ages/renaissance period when scholarship went through such a seismic shift. And when we consider that this shift also influenced the Reformation and all its conclusions about the place of Scripture in the life of the church then it is hard not to see this impetus (the Material Sufficiency idea) as an attempt to coopt Reformation emphases.

It has always bothered me that when confronted by Protestants, so many Catholics go running to the Bible. It has always seemed to me that you would be better served by saying, simply, “I don’t care, the Pope says it, I believe it, that settles it.”

 

[BMSODM]

You know…reading this thread got me to thinking. On topic of course. What do I think about “Protestants”. First, I find the term Protestant to be derogatory in use by some…the same way that non-Catholics use the term RCC or Catholic…like its a dirty word or something.

The part about Mary’s perpetual virginity seems obvious that if we return to the “early Church” beliefs we would find that this was always taught. Don’t you think that if the [Catholic] Church wanted to promote Mary’s Virginity they would have removed it from the scriptures, as is presumed by so many non- or ex-Catholics. Don’t you think they were much smarter than that? These men were genius. One would have to presume that the Church leaders were dummer than dirt to fail to catch this flaw. These men were insanely devoted to knowing scripture.

Here is a prayer I found from the early church, humm. makes you think…

“Hail to thee for ever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who boasts in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” St. Methodius (“Oration on Simeon and Anna,” c. 305 A.D.)

And here is an earlier writing:

"“That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,–was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)

 

[BMSODM]

Oh yea. My entire family swam the tiber this past year. I went to the seminary and still got things wrong. Given the right situation at particular weak moments in our lives, not to mention the bad examples out there, anybody can fall into division, whether by igorance or full knowledge of understanding.

No one can leave a Church because a bunch or a few knuckleheads set bad examples. St. Francis of Assisi is known for saying “Preach the gospel always and when necessary use words”. Well, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Let’s remember that as we knock each other over the head. Listen and understand. I see “Protestants” as being a varied group of Christians with mixed up concepts though well meaning for the most part…People are people no matter where you go. Environment plays a huge role in our perceptions. But we need to try to see things more clearly. It’s a wonder that so many people claim to be bible believing Christians but do not pronounce the “Blessed Mother” as the “Mother of God”…not the creator of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s theology. What about all the other scriptures that are obviously Catholic. John 6, the Eucharist. This was the fundamental problem I had with solo scriptura. Even Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions and teachings he passed down. That’s not little “t” tradition, it’s big “T” tradition. I used to get this mixed up. I used to believe that all Catholics were going to hell, too. And if I can unlearn the ignorance taught me growing up, anybody can.

"We are deeply grieved at thy delay in strengthening us by thy addresses and consolations. If thy absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten then to come, for we believe that it is expedient. There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary [the mother] of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her, and touch those breasts of hers which nourished the Lord Jesus, and may inquire of her respecting some rather secret matters. But Salome also, [the daughter of Anna,] whom thou lovest, who stayed with her five months at Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is full of all graces and all virtues, after the manner of a virgin, fruitful in virtue and grace. And, as they report, she is cheerful in persecutions and afflictions, free from murmuring in the midst of penury and want, grateful to those that injure her, and rejoices when exposed to troubles: she sympathizes with the wretched and the afflicted as sharing in their afflictions, and is not slow to come to their assistance. Moreover, she shines forth gloriously as contending in the fight of faith against the pernicious conflicts of vicious principles or conduct. She is the lady of our new religion and repentance, and the handmaid among the faithful of all works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully magnified by all, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the Scribes and Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us numerous other things regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every particular; nor do we mention such to thee. But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do thou in haste comply with this our desire; and fare thou well. Amen.”(“EPISTLE TO ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE” by St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 1st century A.D.)

 

[Arnobius]

Vocatio,

I have a completely different read on things (not surprisingly).

Scholarship in Sacred Scripture is a fairly new phenomenon (late middle ages).

It is one thing to be a devotional user of the Bible and quite another to be a student of it.

I believe the church fathers were, by and large and with certain important exceptions (e.g. Augustine), devotional users of the Bible. They, effectively, paid more attention to some parts than others (e.g. the Psalms and the Gospels) because these were the most devotionally fruitful, or at least they thought they were.

The idea of a distinctly biblical theology is also fairly new. With Aquinas we get the assumption that human reason, aided by philosophical insight can apprehend certain truths about God.

With the Scholastics the Bible is not so much source material as it is proof-text. It’s culled for buttress material.

This is completely different than the modern view which, I’m sorry to say, has as much to do with the Reformation period as anything else. The period saw the largest single jump in textual variation and awareness and scholarship that we have ever seen.

For the first time it became a specific area of scholarly discipline taught as such in Universities.

I do not believe most of the church fathers were bible scholars in the sense that we would understand that. I believe they loved the Bible, but they loved some parts more than others and were more heirs of a Greek philosophical tradition than they were of a specifically biblical outlook. For them the Bible was either a devotional text or it was a field for mining support for conclusions drawn largely elsewhere.

Some of their mariological ideas are good examples of this. Frankly, it just didn’t matter what a full reading of the Bible gave them, they didn’t read it didactically.

They simply didn’t see it as a field of study.

Of course what you believe about the Church Fathers and what they actually believed are two different things.

Remember also, that the study of the Bible is not necessarily to be grounded in it… let us not forget those Scriptural Scholars who lost their faith on account of what they “discovered” (Bultmann, Ehrmann etc).

Remember Protestants like Karl Barth who recognized how far from Christianity Liberal Protestantism had become with their principles of scriptural study.

Finally, remember that these poor Church Fathers who were so “uneducated” were the ones who proclaimed the truths that Protestants assume today: Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, etc.

What you seem to be saying is basically since the Church Fathers did not agree with Protestantism, it is because they were uneducated in the Scriptures.

 

[wanner47]

It has always bothered me that when confronted by Protestants, so many Catholics go running to the Bible. It has always seemed to me that you would be better served by saying, simply, “I don’t care, the Pope says it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Perhaps that’s because Catholics care to show Protestants two things: (1) Contrary to popular belief, Catholics are not required to be mindless automatons who follow what the Pope says without understanding WHY he has said it, and (2) all Catholic belief has a basis in Scripture and can never be contrary to Scripture.

I was a Protestant (ELCA Lutheran) for 22 years as well as a member of an Assemblies of God-sponsored club (Chi Alpha) while in college, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of what Protestants believe and why they believe so.

I don’t see why Protestants have an objection to being called “Protestants.” They’re protesting against the authority of the Church and the Pope; therefore, they are people who protest – or, simply, Protestants. It’s not a slur or meant to be derogatory in any way; it’s a description of what they are doing by their actions.