What do Protestant really believe about the Catholic Church?

[steve-b]

Wannano:

I would add that most of us would know someone who is Catholic who would be the exemption to the norm.

I find myself often visiting the local non-denominational evangelical church on weekend (and got permission to do so from my parish priest!!) in order to hear something approaching sound doctrine (though, they are devoid of the saints, tradition, and most importantly, the Eucharist!).

Yes, most importantly is the Eucharist.

Even over words spoken in homilies that please or don’t please our ears.

Delphinus:

Admittedly it was the priest that steered me towards the local evangelicals because the local parish just didn’t have what I needed (bible studies, worship, prayer, etc) We’re a Mass only church…

Q:​

For clarification, The priest didn’t say by chance, that steering you in that direction, would substitute for mass for you … right?

AND

To add to your previous great point Re: the Eucharist being most important

Jesus put a HUGE conditional statement together, on the requirement of receiving the Eucharist. IOW, This is NO suggestion but a command from Jesus.

Jn 6:53-58 (all emphasis mine)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

 

[Delphinus]

For clarification, The priest didn’t say by chance, that steering you in that direction, would substitute for mass for you … right?

Oh absolutely not! No, he said it’s an okay practice for someone like me as a devotional practice done in the full knowledge that it does NOT substitute for Mass. He only suggested it because he knows my background (I am Charismatic) and he knows that wild horses couldn’t pull me away from the Mass and the Roman Catholic Church. He also knows I need a supplement though in such an…isolated…area.

 

[steve-b]

thanks for the answer

 

[TC3033]

I think you are not alone among young people , a lot of people aren’t as well informed about religion as they were in the past.

I honestly just caught this…and must thank you for the compliment…(I think ). I’m over 40, so I personally wouldn’t lump us in with “young people”. I could count the number of times I missed church, per year, on one hand. I guess that’s just the way I was raised and the way my church was…I just saw us all as Christians.

I remember accepting a job at a Catholic high school and the last question they asked me (after I accepted) was if I was Catholic, like I would have an issue. I found that so strange.

But the run-around we got when trying to get married, and then then some of the stuff we ran into afterward…we honestly didn’t know there was such a Catholic vs. non-Catholic “thing”.

 

[William_Scott]

Hello Guanophore.

I hope you had a great Christmas. Unfortunately, I have not found time over the holidays to continue the discussion with yourself and Steve-b. Hopefully, I will have time to seriously reply to your posts in the near future.

In the meantime, I would note that you cite to 2 Maccabees in support of the practice of praying to the dead. However, this can only be used as support for the distinct practice of praying for the dead. While I am no proponent of prayers for the dead, even the classic 1928 Book of Common Prayer contains such prayers:
"And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service… " (Service for Holy Communion)

[Of course, the readings of the historic Books of Common Prayer include the Deuterocanon, while Jerome’s distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the Deuterocanon is maintained].

In contrast with “prayers for the dead”, which do have clear support in the Deuterocanon, the practice of “prayers to the dead” is entirely absent from the Deuterocanon, as well as the New Testament and Hebrew Canon. Further, the practice appears to run afoul of the Scriptural condemnation of any communication with the departed (whether the departed is dead in sin or living in God–as was the case of Samuel, Abraham and all the Old Testament Saints).

Finally, for a non-Roman Catholic example of the distinction made between the “prayers for the dead” and “prayers to the dead”: The 1928 Book of Common Prayer–while containing prayers for the dead–also incorporates from the original 39 Articles a condemnation of prayers to the dead or Invocation of Saints which is shockingly strong to our modern ecumenical ears:
“…Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

[Given all the BCP references, I should note while I am essentially traditional Anglican in my beliefs, I am actually sojourning in another blessed portion of the Mystical Body of Christ. This leaves “Mere Christian” as the best label I can muster (and my preferred label). “Bible-thumper” isn’t half bad, but a distant second]

p.s. Finally, I won’t have time to reply to any further posts on this thread at the moment, but as I noted above–I hope to be able to do so before too long…

 

[William_Scott]

p.p.s. I’ve made time for some clarification before signing off for a little while. In case anyone claims that I am improperly quoting the 39 Articles on condemnation of prayers to the saints, I will readily acknowledge that Newman’s [strained] interpretation of this Article sought to carve out grounds in the Article for some “prayers to the saints”. And I have no doubt that there were even some who took part in preparing and approving the 1928 Book of Common Prayer who held a similar position to that of Newman. However, with due respect to those who share Newman’s interpretation, the Anglican Homily of Prayer* (Book of Homilies II, Homily VII), and the consistent practice of the English Branch of the Church prior to Newman make clear in my mind that his interpretation of the Articles on this point was unfounded.

*Anglican Homily on Prayer:
“Let us not therefore put our trust or confidence in the saints or martyrs that be dead. Let us not call upon them, nor desire help at their hands: but let us always lift up our hearts to God, in the name of his dear son Christ, for whose sake as God has promised to hear our prayer, so he will truly perform it. Invocation is a thing proper unto God, which if we attribute unto the Saints, it sounds to their reproach, neither can they well bear it at our hands.”

Now for those who take offense at the strong words of the 39 Articles on this matter, it is helpful to remember that strong words (and the rather distasteful practices of burning at the stake, beheading, etc. the opposition) were the norm on both the Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic side in those days. Undoubtedly, fatal excess in theological disagreements may also hinder effective prayer…

[As a quick aside for the non-existent number who care what I think–I believe the Anglican Church in the Western World–with the exception of a faithful remnant who still cling to the Creedal/Scriptural doctrine of the Church–has basically jettisoned the faith and is a better representative of modern Baal worship than anything remotely resembling the Apostolic faith (Exhibit A–the Episcopagan Church here in the US). Thankfully the vast majority of Anglicans–namely those from Africa, Asia, South America, etc. are–despite inevitable imperfections–faithful followers of Christ. They certainly are better representatives than I am]. Have a great week all…

 

[GKMotley]

And I agree, generally, with your ultimate para.

While observing, re: the occasional reference to the Articles I see in this thread which I have not followed, that the XXXIX are not normative, by their existence, for any save (theoretically) the clergy of the CoE, IAW the 1571 Parliamentary Subscription Act. Anglicans, generally, may accept, partially accept, ignore, or remove them from their Prayer Books and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter, without reference to how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, in fractious times.

 

[JonNC]

I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed; [they strike their breast thrice] by my fault, by my own fault, by my own most grievous fault. Wherefore I beg Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Angels and Saints, and thee, Father, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Yes. Anglican.

 

[HopkinsReb]

And I agree, generally, with your ultimate para.

While observing, re: the occasional reference to the Articles I see in this thread which I have not followed, that the XXXIX are not normative, by their existence, for any save (theoretically) the clergy of the CoE, IAW the 1571 Parliamentary Subscription Act. Anglicans, generally, may accept, partially accept, ignore, or remove them from their Prayer Books and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter, without reference to how Elizabeth I chose to govern her fractious Church, in fractious times.

The ACNA officially holds to the 39 Articles in their “literal and grammatical sense.” So more than just CoE hold to them.

 

[GKMotley]

Any group of Anglicans may do that. And any may not. Motley be the breed.

Save (theoretically) for the clergy of the CoE, by Act of Parliament, which functioned originally as a sort of job description for CoE clergy.

 

[GKMotley]

Among others.

 

[goout]

[What do Protestant really believe about the Catholic Church?]

The Protestant friends that I have hold a couple of things in common:

The CC got off the track and has accumulated human encrustations aka “tradition” (as if protestants somehow don’t…)

Almost all of them work Emperor Constantine into the syllabus of error. ok…Christianity was pure until Constantine. Doesn’t make much sense given Peter’s denials.

They believe the CC is just plain strange: we have statues and stuff, like we worship dead people as thought they were alive (and all the while protestants profess the resurrection, does that make sense?)

To a man/woman, none of my protestant friends really understand Catholicism.
I recently sat down with one of my closest friends who is a UCC pastor, and we resumed our conversation on theology. He always believed he objects to the Catholic Church and takes special pains to point out all the usual canards.

I finally got him to see that his problem is really with fundamentalism, and the Catholic Church is simply the one Church that can serve as a punching bag for his objections to fundamentalism. No other church has enough coherence or is visible enough or takes consistent stands to serve as a punching bag for him.

Many people simply have nowhere else to focus their theological problems other than the CC.
Which might be another proof that Christ is fully present there.

 

[William_Scott]

Hello GKMotley, as a follow up before I really check out of this thread for the time being, the vast majority of the Global South (and by extension the vast majority of Anglican Churches) also uphold the authority of the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP. But, at the end of the day, the “Anglican” formularies are of limited authority as you note. The ancient faith of the Catholic Creeds of the Church and-above all-Sacred Scripture itself, is the ultimate doctrinal authority for any one who slaps silly labels like Anglican or “Mere Christian” on themselves (whether they’re real Anglicans or impostors like me). Anyone who rejects this ultimate authority may be an “Anglican” (or, an Archbishop), but they’re not a Christian (sorry for the downer).

That said, you could be a little messy around the edges in applying this ancient Creedal/Scriptural faith–e.g. thinking that Sacraments are mere signs or that contraception is really great–but you’re still in. But if you think that Jesus was only a man who said progressive things like “don’t judge” and “be ye tolerant”–you might be a really good Spongonian, you might be a warlock, or you might even be an Anglican. But…your religion has nothing to do with Christianity.

Finally, as you would appear to agree (given your name), motley’s not always bad–it can be a beautiful thing. I must say for all the motleyism of Anglicans (and other non-Roman Catholic folds of Christ’s Church)–I’ve found similar traits of motleyism within the RCC fold itself. Further, I’ve found that the RCC motleyism surpasses (in a bad way) the motleyism I’ve seen between the many stripes of God-fearing, Bible-believing Protestants. This RCC motleyism ranges from the Nancy Pelosi(s) to the Antonin Scalia(s) of the world–and is found both in the clerical and non-clerical realms. The ironic thing is that conservative Roman Catholics often have far more in common with the motley crew of Bible-thumpers lurking outside their Church doors (we only lurk when we have to) than they do with the liberal Roman Catholic sitting beside them at Church and even teaching in their pulpit.

 

[JonNC]

Almost all of them work Emperor Constantine into the syllabus of error. ok…Christianity was pure until Constantine. Doesn’t make much sense given Peter’s denials.

So that lurkers do not get the wrong idea.

It doesn’t make sense because of what Constantine did. From the LCMS:

May 21
Constantine, Emperor, and Helena, his mother
Constantine I served as Roman Emperor from A.D. 306 to 337. During his reign the persecution of Christians was forbidden by the Edict of Milan in 312, and ultimately the faith gained full imperial support. Constantine took an active interest in the life and teachings of the church and called the Council of Nicaea in 325 at which orthodox Christianity was defined and defended. His mother, Helena (ca. 255-329), strongly influenced Constantine. Her great interest in locating the holy sites of the Christian faith led her to become one of the first Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Her research led to the identification of Biblical locations in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and beyond, which are still maintained as places of worship today.

Apparently the original Protestants disagree with the view they express. Hence, the use of the term Protestant in regards to doctrine and practice is folly.

https://files.lcms.org/wl/?id=Eqm0sBtilV1kI57LHE7XkLDDgl0mV2ng

 

[lanman87]

Almost all of them work Emperor Constantine into the syllabus of error. ok…Christianity was pure until Constantine. Doesn’t make much sense given Peter’s denials.

From my reading on the subject it isn’t so much as Constantine set out to change Christianity. However, the result of Constantine interest and acceptance of Christianity causes a fundamental shift in Christianity because of the tremendous number of people who converted to Christianity, not because of any real religious or spiritual prompting, but because it was a way to gain favor of both the emperor and the aristocracy that followed the emperor.

 

[goout]

goout:

Almost all of them work Emperor Constantine into the syllabus of error. ok…Christianity was pure until Constantine. Doesn’t make much sense given Peter’s denials.

From my reading on the subject it isn’t so much as Constantine set out to change Christianity. However, the result of Constantine interest and acceptance of Christianity causes a fundamental shift in Christianity because of the tremendous number of people who converted to Christianity, not because of any real religious or spiritual prompting, but because it was a way to gain favor of both the emperor and the aristocracy that followed the emperor.

Whatever the facts are, most any protestant I know reflexively asserts that Christianity was “true” until Constantine came along and the Church got in bed with Satanic forces. And it went off the rails from there.

Another constant among them is the special place of Wycliffe and others who “saved” the bible from the CC which supposedly hid the scriptures from the masses.

There are 5 protestants in my Friday study and they are all great people, and they all have unfounded prejudices toward the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

Many people simply have nowhere else to focus their theological problems other than the CC.
Which might be another proof that Christ is fully present there.

Not a small number aren’t particularly fond of any sacramental / liturgical churches. And if they knew more about Orthodoxy, they’d not like them much, either.
On the other hand, most laity in the pews couldn’t care less, I suspect.

 

[GKMotley]

Motley is in my user name as a nod to the number of times I use it. it’s descriptive merely, not approbative. In any sense.

The Communion, and the 3rd World portion of that especially, is far more evangelical/ reformed than Anglo-Catholic. And hence take a more supine posture before Elizabeth’s political policies. In the Continuum, it’s somewhat different. I’m in the Continuum.

But bottom line. Autocephalous entities (in the Communion or the Continuum) can take the Articles as they please. I’m no great fan of Lambeth, but in 1968 that toothless assembly
made some useful recommendation, anent the Articles:
“The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled ‘Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles’ (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.”

This passed. And following this TEC moved them into a new section of the 79 book. Historical documents.

What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. You need to ask.

Not to worry about the downer. The demise of orthodox Anglicanism, in the Communion, is the downer that tops all other downers.

I do try to keep my doctrinal edges nice and neat.

 

[William_Scott]

Hello GKMotley, I really appreciate the Continuum. Obviously, I have disagreement on certain “Anglo-Catholic” propensities of the Continuum–such as the acceptance of many in the Continuum of prayers to saints…But what’s a little necromancy among friends . (Seriously though, as Scripture shows, no Christian–and by extension, no body of believers–is immune from spiritual idolatry and witchcraft of the heart. I think this inward idolatry and witchcraft often far outstrips the outward acts which I keep protesting against in this thread).

On a final note, one of my greatest points of respect for the Continuum is their faithful stand against the void ab initio “ordination” of priestesses, etc. Conversely, this is one of my greatest points of unhappiness with many outside of the Continuum.

p.s. Steve-b and guanophore–I hope to have time in the next couple of weeks to respond to your posts. I really enjoy the discussion–unfortunately, it looks like I’ll have to kick that discussion down the road at least a couple of weeks because of work.

 

[William_Scott]

p.p.s. Here’s one last post before signing off (is it not a little post? )…Lest I come off as simply being a reactionary against all things “Anglo-Catholic”, I must say this is far from the case. I see the Anglo-Catholic stream in many ways as a needful correction to any watered down teaching on the fundamental “Catholic” aspects of the faith (such as the importance of the Sacraments, Tradition and the Church herself in the Christian life—as even Calvin himself affirmed in his quote of Cyprian—No man can have God for His Father who does not have the Church for His Mother).

In my view, one of the greatest blessings that traditional Prayer Book Anglicanism brings to the Church universal is its strong historic embrace (on paper and imperfectly but in large measure even in practice) of both the “Evangelical” and “Catholic” aspects of the Christian faith. Have a blessed Lord’s Day.