Why do other Christians "hate" Catholics?

[Randy_Carson]

I disagree to some extent.
For one, its the Catholic who refer to other Christians as heretics or protestants. These terms were not friendly at their inception.
Then there were the inquisitions which resulted to may ‘heretics’ being tortured or even burnt alive and their properties confiscated.

However, there is an emergent view from the protestants that the Catholics have gone too far in introducing some teachings whose basis is questionable. Also by equating the sacred Traditions with the Word of God has not augured well and the rift is just widening.

The worry is that Christ the righteous judge will condemn one of the two as having wandered from the true teaching and made others to follow the same.
If the protestants will be on the wrong, then they will be thrown in hell.
If the Catholics will be on the wrong, the same will be done to them. Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory.

Purgatory does not absolve anyone of their sins.

If you are not in a state of grace when you die, then you will go to hell. If you are in a state of grace, then you may go directly to heaven or, more probably, to purgatory for cleansing of the temporal effects of your sins before going to heaven.

To be clear: there are only two final destinies for the soul: Heaven or Hell.

Purgatory cannot save someone who is destined for hell, but it does prepare the saved soul for entrance to the wedding feast.

 

[rcwitness]

I disagree to some extent.
For one, its the Catholic who refer to other Christians as heretics or protestants.

A heretic is not simply another Christian And another Christian is not necessarily a Protestant. A heretic is a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth. And a Protestant is someone who protests the Catholic Faith as being errant.

These terms were not friendly at their inception.

Neither are heresies and protests against the faith

Then there were the inquisitions which resulted to may ‘heretics’ being tortured or even burnt alive and their properties confiscated.

Catholics are not alone in this category. The reformers participated in such things, no?

However, there is an emergent view from the protestants that the Catholics have gone too far in introducing some teachings whose basis is questionable.

Is this new?

Also by equating the sacred Traditions with the Word of God has not augured well and the rift is just widening.

The written Word of God is Tradition. Oral Traditions were things not written that were handed down from the Apostles.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (RSVCE)

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

The worry is that Christ the righteous judge will condemn one of the two as having wandered from the true teaching and made others to follow the same.

So we are not to walk by “worry”, but by faith and love, believing all things and seeking the Faith Confirmed through the Chief Bishop.

If the protestants will be on the wrong, then they will be thrown in hell.
If the Catholics will be on the wrong, the same will be done to them. Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory.

Matthew 25 (RSVCE)

31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[JonNC]

I thought that was “Danno”.

Book him, Muldoon.

 

[SteveVH]

Book him, Muldoon.

 

[Peter_J]

I disagree to some extent.
For one, its the Catholic who refer to other Christians as heretics or protestants. These terms were not friendly at their inception.

We don’t have any monopoly on the word “heresy”. Others can use it on us as much as we can use it on others, and many do. (Which is not to imply that there’s perfect symmetry; for example, a Catholic is more likely to apply the term to Anglicans than vice versa … but then, an Eastern Orthodox is more likely to apply the term to Catholics than vice versa.)

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory.

And where do you find this in Catholic teaching?

 

[jimbowanna]

Because the only way they can really justify their existence is for us to be wrong. Otherwise, if we are right, they had no reason to separate from the Catholic Church and they would have to admit that they are schismatics and heretics.

Since of course, they’re not likely to admit that without reconciling with the Catholic Church, the only other logical recourse is to conclude that the Catholic Church is wrong.

That sounds a bit hateful in addition to arrogant. Why give them ammunition?

 

[Ignatius]

Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory.

Where do you get such an idea? If you believe this is true, please cite where it is taught.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Where do you get such an idea? If you believe this is true, please cite where it is taught.

Cube’s a hit-and-run poster. Wait a couple months, he’ll answer.

 

[spina1953]

I disagree to some extent.
For one, its the Catholic who refer to other Christians as heretics or protestants. These terms were not friendly at their inception.
Then there were the inquisitions which resulted to may ‘heretics’ being tortured or even burnt alive and their properties confiscated.

However, there is an emergent view from the protestants that the Catholics have gone too far in introducing some teachings whose basis is questionable. Also by equating the sacred Traditions with the Word of God has not augured well and the rift is just widening.

The worry is that Christ the righteous judge will condemn one of the two as having wandered from the true teaching and made others to follow the same.
If the protestants will be on the wrong, then they will be thrown in hell.
If the Catholics will be on the wrong, the same will be done to them. Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory.

The problem here is that once a person is in hell there is no turning back and if one is in purgatory then one is being cleansed of whatever keeps them from entering heaven without stain. We also do not know who goes to purgatory and who goes to hell, we also do not know who gets into heaven, we only hope they are in heaven.

 

[JonNC]

=Cube2;12410177]I disagree to some extent.
For one, its the Catholic who refer to other Christians as heretics or protestants. These terms were not friendly at their inception.

Protestant comes from the formal protest at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, which was a protest against civil authorities. I’m not convinced one can say that it was a “not friendly” term from its inception.

However, there is an emergent view from the protestants that the Catholics have gone too far in introducing some teachings whose basis is questionable. Also by equating the sacred Traditions with the Word of God has not augured well and the rift is just widening.

Can the opposite also be said about certain non-Catholic western communions? Rejection of baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the real presence, for instance?

The worry is that Christ the righteous judge will condemn one of the two as having wandered from the true teaching and made others to follow the same.
If the protestants will be on the wrong, then they will be thrown in hell.
If the Catholics will be on the wrong, the same will be done to them. Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory.

If we are to disagree with Catholics regarding Purgatory, it seems prudent that we have a basic understanding of what they teach about Purgatory. This is clearly not the Catholic teaching of Purgatory!

Jon

 

[boar2roar]

A lot of the time its just jealousy at the amount of people and organization that us catholics have. We’re big so like Walmart, the US, we draw a lot of attention from our “peers” and sooner or later you’ll find segments of the population with the “they’ll take over the world syndrome”.

 

[Cube2]

We don’t have any monopoly on the word “heresy”. Others can use it on us as much as we can use it on others, and many do. (Which is not to imply that there’s perfect symmetry; for example, a Catholic is more likely to apply the term to Anglicans than vice versa … but then, an Eastern Orthodox is more likely to apply the term to Catholics than vice versa.)

The issue is how it was conceived. By then there was only Catholics and any different view was regarded as heresy. So, from its original implication, it is any teaching that is different from Catholic teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

The issue is how it was conceived. By then there was only Catholics and any different view was regarded as heresy. So, from its original implication, it is any teaching that is different from Catholic teaching.

It is heartening to see that you acknowledge that the Catholic Church existed way back then.

 

[Cube2]

A lot of the time its just jealousy at the amount of people and organization that us catholics have. We’re big so like Walmart, the US, we draw a lot of attention from our “peers” and sooner or later you’ll find segments of the population with the “they’ll take over the world syndrome”.

Well, I see your view, but that is not the point. If you read the bible you’ll see the point.
Let me give an overview:
During the time of Moses, it didn’t matter how powerful Pharaoh was, what mattered was which side the true God was.
In the mighty Babylon, Shadrak, Mishek & Abednego were cast in a furnace of fire. It did not matter whether Babylon was big, or the King was so powerful. It just mattered on which side God was.
During the reign of King Ahab, Prophet Elijah faced-off with the prophets of Baal. He was alone, while the others were many. What mattered was the side God was.
Examples are many…
I hope you see my point.

 

[Cube2]

Protestant comes from the formal protest at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, which was a protest against civil authorities. I’m not convinced one can say that it was a “not friendly” term from its inception.

Well the verb to protest is an English meaning to say “No”.
However, its usage within the Christian circles was not friendly.

Can the opposite also be said about certain non-Catholic western communions? Rejection of baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the real presence, for instance?

Christianity as outlined by the first apostles did not have these teachings.
These are latter teachings whose basis in the bible is debatable, not absolute.
Regeneration is not brought about by water, but by Faith in Christ. Consider this, criminals are taken for rehabilitation to work on their mind. If baptism is thus, by criminals would be baptized and they reform. But, we find even people who are baptized becoming criminals.

If we are to disagree with Catholics regarding Purgatory, it seems prudent that we have a basic understanding of what they teach about Purgatory. This is clearly not the Catholic teaching of Purgatory!
Jon

If you read the history of developments of some teachings into the Catholic church, you’ll see my point. The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 1439AD. There-before it was not a popular teaching. Christ himself, and even the apostles never taught about purgatory. In the New Testament, you’ll not get it. Any verse used to support it as the basis of the teaching is implied but not explicit.
An example is: Matt:5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
If this is the basis, then one is left wondering if Jesus meant purgatory, or the scripture is used to support an idea.

 

[JonNC]

=Cube2;12449044]
Christianity as outlined by the first apostles did not have these teachings.
These are latter teachings whose basis in the bible is debatable, not absolute.

While off the topic, the basis for Baptism and the Real Presence are not only scriptural, but historically part of the early Church. A general reading of the Fathers makes this obvious.

What is on topic is that when you say,“However, there is an emergent view from the protestants that the Catholics have gone too far in introducing some teachings whose basis is questionable”, the same can clearly be said of some “protestant” communions.

Regeneration is not brought about by water, but by Faith in Christ.

I don’t think anyone believes regeneration comes by water alone. As Luther says, "Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word."
And
"It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."

Consider this, criminals are taken for rehabilitation to work on their mind. If baptism is thus, by criminals would be baptized and they reform. But, we find even people who are baptized becoming criminals.

One can, of course, choose to reject grace.

If you read the history of developments of some teachings into the Catholic church, you’ll see my point. The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 1439AD. There-before it was not a popular teaching. Christ himself, and even the apostles never taught about purgatory. In the New Testament, you’ll not get it. Any verse used to support it as the basis of the teaching is implied but not explicit.
An example is: Matt:5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
If this is the basis, then one is left wondering if Jesus meant purgatory, or the scripture is used to support an idea.

You’ve changed the subject. You said, **" Though the same Catholic teaching absolve their followers from hell through purgatory." ** This is factually incorrect. Catholics do not believe that Purgatory absolves people from Hell. I’m not Catholic, but I know enough to know that, in their teaching, those in Purgatory are destined for Heaven.

Jon

 

[boar2roar]

Well, I see your view, but that is not the point. If you read the bible you’ll see the point.
Let me give an overview:
During the time of Moses, it didn’t matter how powerful Pharaoh was, what mattered was which side the true God was.
In the mighty Babylon, Shadrak, Mishek & Abednego were cast in a furnace of fire. It did not matter whether Babylon was big, or the King was so powerful. It just mattered on which side God was.
During the reign of King Ahab, Prophet Elijah faced-off with the prophets of Baal. He was alone, while the others were many. What mattered was the side God was.
Examples are many…
I hope you see my point.

No I don’t, I think your implication that only Catholics are so especially on the opposite side of god is offensive actually.

 

[Cube2]

No I don’t, I think your implication that only Catholics are so especially on the opposite side of god is offensive actually.

My implication is on when one bases his argument on numbers more than on the fundamental truths. I would not wish to offend you or any other person; I dint intend to.

 

[guanophore]

The issue is how it was conceived. By then there was only Catholics and any different view was regarded as heresy. So, from its original implication, it is any teaching that is different from Catholic teaching.

Well, I see your view, but that is not the point. If you read the bible you’ll see the point.

Are you suggesting that Catholics do not read the Bible? I hope that you will hang around here at CAF, so if you have met Catholics of this kind, you will have the opporunity to meet some that do.

The fact that the CC is not “bible based” does not mean that the Scriptures are not a critical component of our faith.

Let me give an overview:
During the time of Moses, it didn’t matter how powerful Pharaoh was, what mattered was which side the true God was.
In the mighty Babylon, Shadrak, Mishek & Abednego were cast in a furnace of fire. It did not matter whether Babylon was big, or the King was so powerful. It just mattered on which side God was.
During the reign of King Ahab, Prophet Elijah faced-off with the prophets of Baal. He was alone, while the others were many. What mattered was the side God was.
Examples are many…
I hope you see my point.

I do not, but perhaps you are trying to say that it does not matter to you how big and powerful the CC may be, since you believe God is not on the Catholic side?

Well the verb to protest is an English meaning to say "No".

However, its usage within the Christian circles was not friendly.

The original use of this term applied to Christians occurred during the Reformation, when Lutherans Protested civil discrimmination against their faith. The Latin protestare also means to stand up for, or stand up against other forces. Those who “protested” for their faith were standing up for their right to believe as their conscience directed.

Christianity as outlined by the first apostles did not have these teachings.

On the contrary, Cube2, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the real presence are all Apostolic Teachings.

These are latter teachings whose basis in the bible is debatable, not absolute.

These doctrines were in place before the Bible was written. There was no need to include them in the Bible, because they were accepted everywhere as part of the Apostolic faith that had been handed down through the paradosis.

Regeneration is not brought about by water, but by Faith in Christ.

The two are not separated, Cube. Faith in Christ unto salvation was joined to the water of baptism when Christ entered those waters. It was not separated until the Reformation, 1500 years after the Apostles. There are many scriptural references to baptismal regeneration, which is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Consider this, criminals are taken for rehabilitation to work on their mind. If baptism is thus, by criminals would be baptized and they reform. But, we find even people who are baptized becoming criminals.

Being born again does not necessarily mean a person will be sanctified.

If you read the history of developments of some teachings into the Catholic church, you’ll see my point.

Perhaps you would like to cite your sources?

The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 1439AD. There-before it was not a popular teaching. Christ himself, and even the apostles never taught about purgatory. In the New Testament, you’ll not get it. Any verse used to support it as the basis of the teaching is implied but not explicit.

While your assertion is false that the doctrine of purgatory was introduced at this late date, it is also true that the Scriptural support for it is minimal. We also do not see the list of books that belong in the Bible within the inspired text, or the term “Trinity”, or “hypostatic union”. In fact, nothing of the Apostolic faith was extracted from the pages of the NT, since all of it was believed and taught before the NT was written.

An example is: Matt:5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
If this is the basis, then one is left wondering if Jesus meant purgatory, or the scripture is used to support an idea.

It is an allusion to it, but no, none of the Catholic doctrines are “based” in Scripture. They were all delivered to the Church by Christ. This is called the divine deposit of faith.