Who Knows the Bible Better? Protestants or Catholics

[jemfinch]

The differences between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches are minimal?

They certainly are. Consider what the Catechism says: "With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound ‘that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist’ "

I don’t know about that…Papal Authority,

Herein lies the primary cause of the original schism.

Assumption of Mary,

Most Orthodox, as I understand it, hold that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. The only difference here is whether that belief is Tradition or tradition. I’d certainly call that a minimal difference.

Original Sin,

I’m not sure what the exact Orthodox standpoint on this is; perhaps Montalban can comment on how it differs from the Catholic understanding.

Filioque…

The Filioque isn’t a theological difference, it’s just a difference in practice. Eastern Catholics don’t say the filioque in their divine liturgies (nor do I in my Roman mass, incidentally). This a truly minimal difference.

there are no doubt many more of which I am not aware because of my poor understanding of the Orthodox faith.

I was catechized by a Melkite priest, and so learned at least a modicum of information about Eastern Orthodox. The difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics is indeed minimal: Eastern Catholics must accept the Pope’s universal jurisdiction, must affirm such dogmas as the Assumption of Mary and Papal infallibility, and cannot permit divorce or birth control (as Eastern Orthodox do). These are truly minimal differences.

If they were as minimal as you suggest, the split wouldn’t have happened in the first place

You say that as if you know why they split The Eastern and Western Churches parted ways mostly because of cultural differences, incited by a few particularly bad incidents, in particular the sacking of Constantinople. There’s been a lot of pain over these mistakes, and some wounds take a long time to heal. Don’t just assume that so great a divide would be overcome if it didn’t involve great theological differences.

And don’t forget that the split has been overcome by a great number of “Uniate” Churches who returned, in whole or in part, from Eastern Orthodoxy post-schism.

You misunderstood my post, the Church obviously was divided between East and West when the Catholics and Orthodox split 1000 years ago. About 500 years ago, during the Protestant Reformation, the Western Church was futher divided.

Perhaps you were trying to say that the Western-rite Catholic Church has some things in common with Protestants that it doesn’t have in common with the Orthodox, since both Protestants and Roman Catholics are Westerners. Unfortunately, that statement wouldn’t hold, either, since Protestants reject all that the Orthodox reject and more. I can’t think of a single doctrine the Orthodox rejected that Protestants retained.

Admittedly, there are a number of manifestations of the Protestant understanding of the faith. The various Protestant denominations have more in common and are more cohesive than you believe, however.

Having converted from Protestantism, I’m well aware of how they interact. What cohesiveness (I like that word, actually; it’s more appropriate for the relationship between Protestant churches than “unity”) exists between different Protestant churches exists by virtue of the fact that they have a common opponent: the Catholic Church. This cohesiveness also exists at the expense of doctrine: these churches very often put aside their doctrinal differences, even on central, very important matters (such as the nature of Baptism or the Eucharist) in order to achieve a tense cohesion.

It depends on the issue discussed as to whether the Catholic faith is closer to the Orthodox than the Protestant. On most issues, it would be closer to the Orthodox. On some issues, such as the filioque and original sin for example, it would be closer to the Protestant.

The filioque isn’t a theological issue. The Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque is theological accurate according to the Orthodox; their primary issue with it now is that they see our use of the filioque as violating one of the canons of the second ecumenical council.

Jeremy

 

[rr1213]

What I find (sorry for the sterotyping) with the average Bible quoting protestant is an arrogant and self rightgeous “believe as I believe or you’re toast type” attitude. They know all the fire and brimstone quotes and are about as tollerant as your average Nazi Gestopo propaganda specialist.

You don’t know many bible believing Protestants then. Also, arrogance runs both ways…witness Catholics who assert, rightfully or wrongfully, that “we are the one true church” and “everything else is heresy”, etc.

 

[jemfinch]

Hi,

What?? Doesnt the CC believe that when you accept Jesus you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you?

When you’re baptized, you receive the Holy Spirit. At Confirmation, you receive it in greater measure.

Our body is the new Temple because we have the Spirit in us.

And that’s only because we’ve been baptized into Christ, and thus are a new creation in Christ.

The pillar and foundation of the truth is Jesus Christ so I will stick with Him.

No, Jesus is the Truth. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15.

Hi,
It is slightly different from my belief but the CC does believe the Holy Spirit dwells inside a person? Right?

Yes, but the Church does not believe that the Holy Spirit directly leads each believer individually into doctrinal truth; but that should be obvious to anyone who looks at the doctrinal disagreements that exist between the millions of people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into truth. Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit indirectly leads each believer individually into the truth, by virtue of His directly leading the Church into all the truth, as Christ promised his apostles, the foundation upon which the Church is built.

Jeremy

 

[wcknight]

You don’t know many bible believing Protestants then. Also, arrogance runs both ways…witness Catholics who assert, rightfully or wrongfully, that “we are the one true church” and “everything else is heresy”, etc.

You may want to consult Alex Jones, a Pentacostal minister who converted with much of his following when he researched and discovered “whoops I should really have a V8”

 

[rr1213]

The Filioque isn’t a theological difference, it’s just a difference in practice. Eastern Catholics don’t say the filioque in their divine liturgies (nor do I in my Roman mass, incidentally). This a truly minimal difference.

The Eastern and Western Churches parted ways mostly because of cultural differences, incited by a few particularly bad incidents, in particular the sacking of Constantinople. There’s been a lot of pain over these mistakes, and some wounds take a long time to heal. Don’t just assume that so great a divide would be overcome if it didn’t involve great theological differences.

Having converted from Protestantism, I’m well aware of how they interact. What cohesiveness (I like that word, actually; it’s more appropriate for the relationship between Protestant churches than “unity”) exists between different Protestant churches exists by virtue of the fact that they have a common opponent: the Catholic Church.

The filioque isn’t a theological issue. The Roman Catholic understanding of the filioque is theological accurate according to the Orthodox; their primary issue with it now is that they see our use of the filioque as violating one of the canons of the second ecumenical council.

Jeremy

Oh, I know that politics played an important role in the Great Schism. It also played an important role in the schisms that arose out of the Reformation…on all sides of the theological divide. Unfortunately, the church is still subject to human influences including political ones.

I truly don’t understand you when you say that the filioque isn’t a theological issue. I understand the Orthodox objection that the Catholic Church acted unilaterally in imposing the change from what was agreed upon at Council, but to my understanding at least there remains theological differences as well.

Despite being a former Protestant (what Church btw?), I think that you are not accurate if you think that all Protestant Churches consider the Catholic Church to be their “enemy”. I have been a Protestant all my life, about half in the Methodist Church and half in the Episcopal Church. I’ve also spent significant times during my life worshipping at Baptist, Presbyterian and Lutheran Churches. Believe me, we do not spend much time talking about Roman Catholics. People get an unbalanced view about the Catholic/Protestant divide from internet forums I believe.

 

[rr1213]

You may want to consult Alex Jones, a Pentacostal minister who converted with much of his following when he researched and discovered “whoops I should really have a V8”

I’m afraid that you’ve lost me here. I’ve never heard of the fellow.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

When you’re baptized, you receive the Holy Spirit. At Confirmation, you receive it in greater measure.

And that’s only because we’ve been baptized into Christ, and thus are a new creation in Christ.

No, Jesus is the Truth. The Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15.

Yes, but the Church does not believe that the Holy Spirit directly leads each believer individually into doctrinal truth; but that should be obvious to anyone who looks at the doctrinal disagreements that exist between the millions of people who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into truth. Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit indirectly

Hi,
I learned something new today. I did not realize the CC does not believe that the Holy Spirit teaches us and guides us as individuals.
Thanks for the info.

 

[wcknight]

Alex Jones is a former Pentacostal Minister from Detroit Michigan, who converted along with 54 members of his congregation. He had been doing research on the early Church to try to bring his church back to the way early Christian practiced their faith in the first and second century.

He discovered that the Catholic Church is the only church that practices its faith almost identically to the way the early Christians did. He recently wrote a book about his faith journey and conversion. He is now a Catholic deacon.

 

[runandsew]

What exactly is knowing the Bible?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

You don’t know many bible believing Protestants then. Also, arrogance runs both ways…witness Catholics who assert, rightfully or wrongfully, that “we are the one true church” and “everything else is heresy”, etc.

Hi,
I agree about arrogance running both ways. I have never said to anyone you must believe my way or you are a heretic.EVER. It is not my job to say that. It is God’s job and He did say what we have to do and it is in the bible. I think we all,protestant and catholics need to be more humble too each other. When we profess that our way is the only way we are being arrogant and prideful. I have some problems with catholic doctrine but I dont see it being all wrong and I would certainly never tell someone to leave the CC. I think catholics should also try to give protestants the same courtesy.

You can speak the truth to someone without cramming it down their throats and let God do the rest That is what I am working really hard to realize that I cannot save anyone no matter how hard I try, only God can.

 

[Fidelis]

Hi,
I learned something new today. I did not realize the CC does not believe that the Holy Spirit teaches us and guides us as individuals.
Thanks for the info.

You misread jemfinch’s post. She says that the Holy Spirit does not lead individuals into **doctrinal **truth, that is, it is not the individual who determines and defines doctrines definitively, even for themselves. That would lead to, well, Protestantism, with a multitude of competing definitions of truth, which all can’t be true at the same time.

Catholics do believe in the individual indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the One who sanctifies, helps us to pray, and aids our informed conscience in following the truths of Divine Revelation, as taught by the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Maybe we are not catholic simply because we do know the Bible better than Catholic. Also I never knew a Baptist than felt that they Hadto go to church. We go because we desire to worship God together with other Christians.
And Yes anyone can menorize verses but Psalms 119; 11 “thy word have I hide in My heart than I might not sin against thee” says it all.

forever Baptist
allischalmers

How many baptist churchs have services 7 days a week? And the church is packed at every service? The Catholics do.

I, a Catholic, go to church because I enjoy going. I have free will, I don’t HAVE to go.

Allis, you’re slinging mud. :nope:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

You misread jemfinch’s post. She says that the Holy Spirit does not lead individuals into **doctrinal **truth, that is, it is not the individual who determines and defines doctrines definitively, even for themselves. That would lead to, well, Protestantism, with a multitude of competing definitions of truth, which all can’t be true at the same time.

Catholics do believe in the individual indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the One who sanctifies, helps us to pray, and aids our informed conscience in following the truths of Divine Revelation, as taught by the Church through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Hi,
OHHH sorry about that. Thanks for further explaining. I get it now.

 

[dljl]

“Please be careful when posting that it doesnt sound arrogant and that I am better then you mentality.”…

Hi,
While I would certainly agree that it is important to stress what we Catholics have in common with our Protestant brothers and sisters, we also have to acknowledge the differences, charitably. Otherwise this becomes a “tolerance” board instead of a discussion board. I still have wonderful discussions with many of my dear evangelical friends. And we agree to disagree. This board should be no different. I apologize for any perceived arrogance.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

“Please be careful when posting that it doesnt sound arrogant and that I am better then you mentality.”…

Hi,
While I would certainly agree that it is important to stress what we Catholics have in common with our Protestant brothers and sisters, we also have to acknowledge the differences, charitably. Otherwise this becomes a “tolerance” board instead of a discussion board. I still have wonderful discussions with many of my dear evangelical friends. And we agree to disagree. This board should be no different. I apologize for any perceived arrogance.

Hi,

AMEN and I agree 100%

 

[jemfinch]

I truly don’t understand you when you say that the filioque isn’t a theological issue. I understand the Orthodox objection that the Catholic Church acted unilaterally in imposing the change

Let’s be clear: as far as I know (and I’m no history scholar, I’ll admit), the Roman Church wasn’t imposing the filioque on anyone; it was simply using the word in its own practice, to combat some Arian-esque heresies. The Eastern Churches (both then and now) are entirely free not to say the filioque in their recitation of the creed. What they cannot do is accuse the Roman Church of heresy for saying it.

to my understanding at least there remains theological differences as well.

There was some initial confusion at first as to what the filioque actually meant. Even today, you’ll find Eastern Christians who will claim that the filioque means there are “two Fathers in the Trinity,” but that’s not accurate, anymore so than the Protestant accusation that Catholics “worship Mary” is. The filioque, properly understood, means that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father as the sole generator, to the Son as the target, and back: the Holy Spirit is the personification of the love that exists between them. As far as I know, that an accurate (the accurate, perhaps) description.

Despite being a former Protestant (what Church btw?),

Various evangelical churches, but I was raised in the non-instrumental Restorationist movement churches. My father was even a minister (and seeks to regain that ministry even today) in those churches that call themselves the “Church of Christ.”

I think that you are not accurate if you think that all Protestant Churches consider the Catholic Church to be their “enemy”.

I originally wrote “enemy,” but I changed it to “opponent” to more clearly indicate the apparent relationship. I think it’s accurate to say that many Protestant churches consider the Catholic Church to be their opponent; Personally, I’ve got a Lutheran pastor who wants me (a recent convert to Catholicism) to meet with an Assembly of God preacher/author to discuss my conversion, with the clear goal of “bringing me back” to Protestantism. Lutheranism and the Assembly of God are about as far away as denominations get: the AoG denies many of the doctrines of the faith that Luther, at least (and I would imagine many Lutherans) hold in common with the Catholic Church.

I have been a Protestant all my life, about half in the Methodist Church and half in the Episcopal Church. I’ve also spent significant times during my life worshipping at Baptist, Presbyterian and Lutheran Churches. Believe me, we do not spend much time talking about Roman Catholics.

Oh, I know. I rarely heard about Catholicism when I was a Protestant; but when the subject did arise, there was no mistaking that they were less our brothers and sisters in Christ than our fellow Protestants. Comments like “We’ll work with Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists…even Catholics!” made very clear the relative closeness of their relationship with Catholicism and their relationship with other Protestant denominations. (Then again, being raised in a Restorationist movement church, even all the other denominations were our opponents; at least they’re consistent on that point )

Jeremy

 

[kleary]

I would like to think that it’s at least an even split, however, I always get the impression there are more ignorant Catholics than ignorant Protestants as far as the Scriptures are concerned.

While I firmly believe Catholics are the original and only true Bible Christians, it seems today in this age most are plain ignorant. This really gets under my skin.

Anyone agree/disagree? Is this dilemma found everywhere or more in the USA?

The Catholic Church knows “Divine Revelation” better than any Protestant. It should be that way since there was no Bible in the beginning and the Church did not need to read Scripture in order to teach the faith.

Ken

 

[rr1213]

The Catholic Church knows “Divine Revelation” better than any Protestant. It should be that way since there was no Bible in the beginning and the Church did not need to read Scripture in order to teach the faith.

Ken

Why do Catholics continue to claim that there was no bible in the early years of the Church? The Old Testament was clearly canonical. Further, most of the letters that make up the New Testament were being written to the various churches within years after Christ’s death. Paul, Peter and James were writing the letters that were later canonized during the time period of the early Christians. These Christians knew the letters to be inspired by God and used them for hundreds of years prior to their eventual canonization. It is not as if the early Christians did not have access to these letters.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Why do Catholics continue to claim that there was no bible in the early years of the Church? The Old Testament was clearly canonical. Further, most of the letters that make up the New Testament were being written to the various churches within years after Christ’s death. Paul, Peter and James were writing the letters that were later canonized during the time period of the early Christians.

Well, that wasn’t the Bible, was it? The Old Testament wasn’t cut n’ dried, the Jews formalized what they considered canonical at Jamnia (w/ the 39 books of the OT) after the destruction of the Temple and Catholics only formally canonized it in the 4th Century.

These Christians knew the letters to be inspired by God and used them for hundreds of years prior to their eventual canonization. It is not as if the early Christians did not have access to these letters.

There was also other letters floating around that didn’t get canonized, so basically they had (to one degree or another) the inspired writings of the NT but there were major disagreement as to which ones were in fact canonical with even orthodox Fathers disagreeing and thinking that some books that ended up canonized were not really inspired and that some books that didn’t end up being canonized were inspired!

That doesn’t sound like they had a Bible to me! They had Tradition-which eventually formalized the Bible. The Faith spread without recourse to a formally canonized book.

 

[jemfinch]

Why do Catholics continue to claim that there was no bible in the early years of the Church?

Because it’s a correct claim.

The Old Testament was clearly canonical. Further, most of the letters that make up the New Testament were being written to the various churches within years after Christ’s death. Paul, Peter and James were writing the letters that were later canonized during the time period of the early Christians. These Christians knew the letters to be inspired by God and used them for hundreds of years prior to their eventual canonization. It is not as if the early Christians did not have access to these letters.

No one’s saying they had no scripture, only that they had no Bible. They didn’t have a definitive, canonical collection of all the texts authoritatively declared to be theopneuneostos. To have Scripture, and to have a Bible, are two different things.

Jeremy