Why are Protestants so Anti-Catholic?

[estesbob]

That doesn’t seem any more nonsense than those who say that in the year 100 AD all Christians were Catholics?

Both are true statements depending on your definition of what it means to be either Catholic or Baptist. However, in my opinion, what is existant today is not as connected, in either case, as those who use those statements would like to think that they are.

There is ample evidence that up until the so called reformation all Christians were Catholics. There is not a scintilla of evidence they were baptists-an impossiblity since the false doctrines of Sola Fidelis and Sola Sciptura were not created for another 1,500 years or so.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Do Baptists believe in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ? The Early Christians did. Do they accept infant baptism as valid? The Early Christians did. Do they look to Bishops as authoritative leaders for the Faith? The Early Christians did. I think I’ll take my chances and go with the early Christians being Catholic.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

There is ample evidence that up until the so called reformation all Christians were Catholics. There is not a scintilla of evidence they were baptists-an impossiblity since the false doctrines of Sola Fidelis and Sola Sciptura were not created for another 1,500 years or so.

What Baptists today believe with respect to the Eucharist or Sola Scriptura is irrelevant as to whether all of the first church were Baptists.

While I personally accept that the early church practiced infant baptism, there are plenty who do not. And even those who do would generally submit that the rule (with few exceptions) was adult baptism by immersion. Likewise an argument can be made that the early church did not have an ecclesiatical hierarchy, that bishops were overseers in local communities, that were related to each other by common doctrine not ecclesiastical government. That all sounds very Baptist if you are a Baptist. Just as you look at the early church and see it all being very Catholic.

Each present day group has created the past of the Church in its own image. And in my opinion ignoring those things that don’t quite fit.

I don’t think that Ignatius would recognize the Catholic church of today; and, other than that it still preaches Christ, I am certain that Peter would not. Even the term “catholic” was not used to describe the Church in Peter’s day.

And given that the term “catholic” means universal, the moment one part of the Church began distancing itself from others who were true believers because of ecclesiatical difference or issues of authority, it quit being truly “catholic”, and not amount of writing “Catholic” in its name will change the lack of universality (and there for of true catholicism) in the Catholic church.

 

[lak611]

There is ample evidence that up until the so called reformation all Christians were Catholics.

Actually starting in 1054, there also were Orthodox; but no Baptists until after the Reformation.

 

[estesbob]

Actually starting in 1054, there also were Orthodox; but no Baptists until after the Reformation.

I always forget the Schism but even there they agreed on the vast majority of Doctrine.

 

[estesbob]

What Baptists today believe with respect to the Eucharist or Sola Scriptura is irrelevant as to whether all of the first church were Baptists.

While I personally accept that the early church practiced infant baptism, there are plenty who do not. And even those who do would generally submit that the rule (with few exceptions) was adult baptism by immersion. Likewise an argument can be made that the early church did not have an ecclesiatical hierarchy, that bishops were overseers in local communities, that were related to each other by common doctrine not ecclesiastical government. That all sounds very Baptist if you are a Baptist. Just as you look at the early church and see it all being very Catholic.

Each present day group has created the past of the Church in its own image. And in my opinion ignoring those things that don’t quite fit.

I don’t think that Ignatius would recognize the Catholic church of today; and, other than that it still preaches Christ, I am certain that Peter would not. Even the term “catholic” was not used to describe the Church in Peter’s day.

And given that the term “catholic” means universal, the moment one part of the Church began distancing itself from others who were true believers because of ecclesiatical difference or issues of authority, it quit being truly “catholic”, and not amount of writing “Catholic” in its name will change the lack of universality (and there for of true catholicism) in the Catholic church.

Can you post some evidence to back up your opinions?

 

[lak611]

I always forget the Schism but even there they agreed on the vast majority of Doctrine.

True!

 

[mercygate]

I always forget the Schism but even there they agreed on the vast majority of Doctrine.

. . . and they certainly did not divide over sola Scriptura, sola fide, or believers-only baptism!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Can you post some evidence to back up your opinions?

The evidence is in the meaning of the word “catholic”. It does not mean belonging to Rome, it means universal. Once the Catholic church defined itself as all under the authority of the Holy See in Rome, and not longer defined itself as the universal congregation of all who belonged to Jesus Christ, it quite being “catholic” in the true meaning of the word, and became nothing more than a “Catholic” denomination, among many denominations that comprise the true Church of Jesus Christ.

To denominate is to note differences, to be catholic is to know our oneness. By excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Holy See in essence declared that is was no longer interested in preserving the catholicity of the Church, and preferred to become the Catholic church, just another different group within the body of Christ, instead. Thus what Christ established with Peter, in contrast to the teaching of the Catholic church, is NOT preserved through the papacy and the governmental authority of said denomination, but is preserved today only in the invisible union that all Christians have with one another as full brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, and thus also with one another. Anyone who would consider another that is attached to Jesus to not be attached to the same vine as they are, is continuing to create schism in the Church to this day. If this is the teaching of the Catholic church and its magestirum, then it is in grave error. It has become the very thing which it claims others to have been in the past.

Such a statement is not anti-Catholic. It is asking the Catholic church to return to being pro-body of Christ in its entire fullness.

 

[estesbob]

Such a statement is not anti-Catholic. It is asking the Catholic church to return to being pro-body of Christ in its entire fullness.

The Catholic Church is the Body of the Christ. There is nothng fo it to return to.

You have two Choices-either God allowed his church to flounder in serious error for 1,500 years and then split in thousands of different directions OR The Catholic Church is exactly what most Christians aknowledged for the 1,500 years-it is the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ and protected and guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Choice #3:

The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ is composed of all those whom He has brought to Himself through saving faith, regardless of their affilication with temporal fellowships.

Whether they are found in the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, or the churches (yes, churches, not ecclesiatical communions nor faith communities – though those are not degragatory terms) of protestantism/anglicanism or no church, if they belong to Jesus they are part of his one true Church, the body of Christ that has no head (including no temporal head) other than Jesus Christ himself. Jesus has kept this body secure despite the factions that have grown-up over governenance and specific doctrines even amongst its members. So, just as Paul outlines in his letter to the local congregation in Corinth, there are many members, but just one body. And though one member might see itself as the whole body or might say to another that you are not a part of the body, that doesn’t make it so.

 

[estesbob]

Choice #3:

The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ is composed of all those whom He has brought to Himself through saving faith, regardless of their affilication with temporal fellowships.

But nobody beleived that for 1,500 years.

Whether they are found in the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, or the churches (yes, churches, not ecclesiatical communions nor faith communities – though those are not degragatory terms) of protestantism/anglicanism or no church, if they belong to Jesus they are part of his one true Church, the body of Christ that has no head (including no temporal head) other than Jesus Christ himself. Jesus has kept this body secure despite the factions that have grown-up over governenance and specific doctrines even amongst its members. So, just as Paul outlines in his letter to the local congregation in Corinth, there are many members, but just one body. And though one member might see itself as the whole body or might say to another that you are not a part of the body, that doesn’t make it so.

And he did. He founded his Church that has stood solid in mainting the faith for 2,000 years.

Even Paul aceded to the Authority of the Church.

 

[DixiesFinest]

Choice #3:

The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ is composed of all those whom He has brought to Himself through saving faith, regardless of their affilication with temporal fellowships.

So, when one denomination vehemently denies what another denomination teaches (ex. FREE WILL vs ELECTION, etc), its just temporal fellowships? Not serious questions of truth? JESVS is ok with people floundering and not knowing which “church” teaches the full truth? What Bible do you read again?

 

[mercygate]

Choice #3:

The true church of the Lord Jesus Christ is composed of all those whom He has brought to Himself through saving faith, regardless of their affilication with temporal fellowships.[/quoqte]The Catholic Church is not a “temporal fellowship.” It is the visible Body and Bride of Jesus Christ.

Whether they are found in the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, or the churches (yes, churches, not ecclesiatical communions nor faith communities – though those are not degragatory terms) of protestantism/anglicanism or no church, if they belong to Jesus they are part of his one true Church, the body of Christ that has no head (including no temporal head) other than Jesus Christ himself. Jesus has kept this body secure despite the factions that have grown-up over governenance and specific doctrines even amongst its members. So, just as Paul outlines in his letter to the local congregation in Corinth, there are many members, but just one body. And though one member might see itself as the whole body or might say to another that you are not a part of the body, that doesn’t make it so.

The Body of Christ has no head? For Catholics the head of the Body is Jesus Christ. You need to review your ecclesiology before you claim there is no distinction between a true particular Church and an ecclesial body or faith community. That’s just reductio ad absurdum. True particiular Churches are by no means “denominations.” They are Apostolic in origin and descent.

 

[BrianK2007]

Why are Protestants who have bias against the Catholic Church so Anti-Catholic. There are numerous Non-Catholic Members here who are extremely Anti-Catholic. I won’t mention their names.

There is no answer to that question. I have an anti-protestant bias. And not all of it has to do with theology.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

But nobody beleived that for 1,500 years.

If you mean nobody in the Catholic church has believed that for the past 1500 years, I can’t say for certain, but you might be right. If you mean nobdoy in the Church of Jesus Christ believed it during the first 1500 years of the church, I tend to doubt that. I think the early church most certainly believed it.

Even Paul aceded to the Authority of the Church.

Very true. And also Peter. (see Acts 15)

Your point is???

 

[Philena]

That is why I was a Protestant for 42 years. It was and is the faith of my parents. It wasn’t until I asked myself the reasons for my faith that I found the Faith.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

The Body of Christ has no head? For Catholics the head of the Body is Jesus Christ. You need to review your ecclesiology before you claim there is no distinction between a true particular Church and an ecclesial body or faith community. That’s just reductio ad absurdum. True particiular Churches are by no means “denominations.” They are Apostolic in origin and descent.

I didn’t say the Body of Christ has no head. I said the body of Christ has no head other than Jesus Christ himself.

Which ecclesiology do you wish me to review, the Catholic one thast is already filled with biased and circular interpretations continually pointing back at itself? That would lead me just as astray as you already are.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And he did. He founded his Church that has stood solid in mainting the faith for 2,000 years.

Having found the following statement in another thread, I know understand why you profess Roman Catholic without regard to whether they are truly Christian beliefs or not.

I never refer to myself as a Christian. i always say i am a Roman Catholic.

That is about a telling a statement as I can imagine anyone to make.

I’m sure you think your beliefs are in fact Christian, but my guess is that what makes them Christian in your mind is that they are Roman Catholic. Would that be a true assumption on my part?

Why that is important, is that it presupposes that any view that is not in harmony with Roman Catholicism would be therefore non-Christian and in error. And that just does not follow. It is entirely possible that there is truth outside of Roman Catholicism. I doubt if any earth-bound human being has the whole truth (see 1 Corinthian 13:12). And Roman Catholic interpretation of the keys belonging exclusively to the seat of Peter is just that, an interpretation. One I dispute. I think they belong to the Church, which again I assert is bigger than just the Catholic institution of the church, but includes Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists, alike. Yes, that means there are differences in the Church. But there were differences even in the Church of the apostles era (views on what was required to be a Christian, the eating of certain foods, sectarian issues around who they “belonged” to, understandings of various teachings such as core doctrines including the incarnation and resurrection) and still they understood themselves as one Church of many congregations, unconnected with each other except for the common faith in Jesus as Lord and their common baptism into him.

I may have been baptized and worship in Methodist congregations, but I am NOT a United Methodist; I am not a Protestant; and I am not anti-anything associated with Christ; I am first and formost a Christian.

But to say: “I never refer to myself as a Christian. i always say i am a Roman Catholic.” I wonder if that means you are anti- anything that is not Roman Catholic, no matter how Christian it is?

 

[DixiesFinest]

Having found the following statement in another thread, I know understand why you profess Roman Catholic without regard to whether they are truly Christian beliefs or not.

That is about a telling a statement as I can imagine anyone to make.

I’m sure you think your beliefs are in fact Christian, but my guess is that what makes them Christian in your mind is that they are Roman Catholic. Would that be a true assumption on my part?

Why that is important, is that it presupposes that any view that is not in harmony with Roman Catholicism would be therefore non-Christian and in error. And that just does not follow. It is entirely possible that there is truth outside of Roman Catholicism. I doubt if any earth-bound human being has the whole truth (see 1 Corinthian 13:12). And Roman Catholic interpretation of the keys belonging exclusively to the seat of Peter is just that, an interpretation. One I dispute. I think they belong to the Church, which again I assert is bigger than just the Catholic institution of the church, but includes Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists, alike. Yes, that means there are differences in the Church. But there were differences even in the Church of the apostles era (views on what was required to be a Christian, the eating of certain foods, sectarian issues around who they “belonged” to, understandings of various teachings such as core doctrines including the incarnation and resurrection) and still they understood themselves as one Church of many congregations, unconnected with each other except for the common faith in Jesus as Lord and their common baptism into him.

I may have been baptized and worship in Methodist congregations, but I am NOT a United Methodist; I am not a Protestant; and I am not anti-anything associated with Christ; I am first and formost a Christian.

But to say: “I never refer to myself as a Christian. i always say i am a Roman Catholic.” I wonder if that means you are anti- anything that is not Roman Catholic, no matter how Christian it is?

Or possibly, he could mean that the Catholic Church is the Christian Church?****

 

[mercygate]

Having found the following statement in another thread, I know understand why you profess Roman Catholic without regard to whether they are truly Christian beliefs or not.

That is about a telling a statement as I can imagine anyone to make.

I’m sure you think your beliefs are in fact Christian, but my guess is that what makes them Christian in your mind is that they are Roman Catholic. Would that be a true assumption on my part?

Why that is important, is that it presupposes that any view that is not in harmony with Roman Catholicism would be therefore non-Christian and in error. And that just does not follow. It is entirely possible that there is truth outside of Roman Catholicism. I doubt if any earth-bound human being has the whole truth (see 1 Corinthian 13:12). And Roman Catholic interpretation of the keys belonging exclusively to the seat of Peter is just that, an interpretation. One I dispute. I think they belong to the Church, which again I assert is bigger than just the Catholic institution of the church, but includes Orthodox, Methodists, Baptists, alike. Yes, that means there are differences in the Church. But there were differences even in the Church of the apostles era (views on what was required to be a Christian, the eating of certain foods, sectarian issues around who they “belonged” to, understandings of various teachings such as core doctrines including the incarnation and resurrection) and still they understood themselves as one Church of many congregations, unconnected with each other except for the common faith in Jesus as Lord and their common baptism into him.

I may have been baptized and worship in Methodist congregations, but I am NOT a United Methodist; I am not a Protestant; and I am not anti-anything associated with Christ; I am first and formost a Christian.

But to say: “I never refer to myself as a Christian. i always say i am a Roman Catholic.” I wonder if that means you are anti- anything that is not Roman Catholic, no matter how Christian it is?

As John Henry Cardinal Newman once said: To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

When I think that I used to think like you do, it should inspire me with sympathy. All it does is make me cringe.