Why do Protestants hate the Catholic Church?

[ignatius777]

Brian, have you ever attended one of those services? Granted, the rock and roll part is a bit much to me…but many, include in the church I attend, use a variety of instruments to accompany our singing…the best part for me is that they are NOT loud!! My church is one where a bunch of the people had to break away from the church they were attending. It was an Lutheran church which went along with the ELCA church’s refusal to back down from allowing gay pastors in the pulpit.

I call my Pastor “Pastor Meier” but have been in other churches where I have been encouraged to call them Pastor - along with their first names. When I watch EWTN, I see priests who are called by their first names as well…Father Mitch is the one that comes to my mind.

Basically, our services include some great praise songs, fervent prayer, communion at every service and encouragement to be mission minded as was Christ.

God bless!!

Rita

What is ELCA?

 

[spedteacherita]

Jesus Himself prophesied that this would happen:

John 15:18-21 ““If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.[c] 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’** If they persecuted me, they will persecute you;** . . . 21 But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know Him who sent me.”

Matthew 10:21-22 “Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 2and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.”

You see, they do not know that it is Jesus who founded The Catholic Church and that it is Him who sends us.

It is not only the Catholic Christians who are being persecuted…Many, many others have been and still are being persecuted. We should pray for all as they endure these atrocities…God forbid that we ever have to be in a position such as they…

Blessings

 

[spedteacherita]

What is ELCA?

Sorry, ELCA is Evangelical Lutheran Church (in or of) American. They are not as conservative in their doctrines as is the LCMS or WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).

 

[ignatius777]

Sorry, ELCA is Evangelical Lutheran Church (in or of) American. They are not as conservative in their doctrines as is the LCMS or WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).

Thank you

 

[Magdalena59]

… On this site things are much different and you are a good example of that very nice difference. Thank you.

Agree.

 

[Magdalena59]

… I did not become a member of the LCMS until I was in my early 20’s and had grown up attending a variety of churches including Baptist and Congregationalist churches. My family did raise their eyebrows when I became a member of the Lutheran Church mostly because they didn’t understand it’s Liturgical services and, of course, my baptism where the water was poured on my head and I was NOT dunked…but that was it.

I think it’s important to all of us that we reach out with love to our fellow Christians…Think how much the enemy is laughing at us for the infighting that we have going on. We should learn from each other…not condemn one another!!

One important point - learning does not mean we have to accept another’s practice as truth unless we are led by the Holy Spirit to embrace it…but learning does mean we understand why a person or denomination does what they do. Peace all!

Rita

Before I returned to the Catholic faith, I considered a reformed liturgical church and I do remember my evangelical non-liturgical friends thinking how strange that was that I would consider that. I think you are right it is a lack of understanding

I have to say having read through all of the postings that this was one of the best dialogues I have seen on these forums. We’re not leaving it having “made our point” about this doctrine or that doctrine but have actually shared the love of Christ with one another.

I understand not all threads can be as peaceful but I hope that what we take away from here is that we are not all speaking from hatred as we pose our points in the various topics but that we do share a commonality among ourselves which Christ Jesus!

God bless all!

Rita

Agreed. When reading this last post of yours and getting to the end your name jumped out at me, Rita, because of Saint Rita. She was considered a peacemaker, especially after losing her family. She was most essential to bringing peace to two different political factions or families.

I just thought I would mention it because she was a peacemaker and I agree this is going peacefully and I hope it continues.

saintritashrine.org/life-of-saint-rita/

amazon.com/Saint-Rita-Vittoria-Belvedere/dp/B000MTEKGO

Magdalena

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Why is there a sense of rejection of Catholicism by some Protestants? (I definitely don’t agree that all Protestants hate the Catholic Church).

I think that if you are the one rejecting something, you feel that you must justify that rejection. There is a very human tendency, by some Protestant pastors, to explain their views by renouncing the original Church. A strong enough personal faith would not feel the need to attack other faiths.

One key moment in my own conversion from Protestant to Catholic was when I acknowledged that the Catholic Church was the basis of my Protestant faith and tried to justify my rejection of the original Church. When I could no longer reject the original, I could no longer justify NOT being Catholic.

Not all Protestants hate the Catholic Church. There are many churches that come together to support and help attain a common goal, especially for their own communities. Such a broad statement is unfair.

 

[Mystophilus]

And in the time you are referring to there was only one ‘whole church’ which was the Catholic Church, as it was and still is centred around Rome

It was the Catholic (i.e. “universal”) Church, but it was not centred in Rome. As but one example among far too many, Rome was not even invited to the first Council of Constantinople, in 381, the Council which was chaired by Meletius of Antioch (whom the Bishop of Rome did not even recognise as Bishop of Antioch), the Council which re-wrote the Nicene Creed (and remember what happened when the West tried that with the Filioque), the Council which the East nonetheless described in 382 as being οἰκουμενική (“ecumenical”, i.e., of the whole world). Even a claim that just the Western end of the Early Church was centred around Rome becomes rather problematic when one considers the sharp disagreements between Carthage and Rome in the third century.

In short, the idea of a worldwide Church centred in Rome was one which developed in Western (Latin) ecclesiology but failed to take hold in Eastern (Greek) ecclesiology. The fact that various Eastern bodies have subsequently moved into full communion with Rome does not change this.

 

[Magdalena59]

It was the Catholic (i.e. “universal”) Church, but it was not centred in Rome. As but one example among far too many, Rome was not even invited to the first Council of Constantinople, in 381, the Council which was chaired by Meletius of Antioch (whom the Bishop of Rome did not even recognise as Bishop of Antioch), the Council which re-wrote the Nicene Creed (and remember what happened when the West tried that with the Filioque), the Council which the East nonetheless described in 382 as being οἰκουμενική (“ecumenical”, i.e., of the whole world). Even a claim that just the Western end of the Early Church was centred around Rome becomes rather problematic when one considers the sharp disagreements between Carthage and Rome in the third century.

In short, the idea of a worldwide Church centred in Rome was one which developed in Western (Latin) ecclesiology but failed to take hold in Eastern (Greek) ecclesiology. The fact that various Eastern bodies have subsequently moved into full communion with Rome does not change this.

It was not that Rome was not invited. The council was to deal with Eastern issues. At the time Rome was involved with another synod but did agree with the council. It was raise to an ecumenical council later by Pope Gregory the Great.

 

[cheezey]

… Not all Protestants hate the Catholic Church. There are many churches that come together to support and help attain a common goal, especially for their own communities. Such a broad statement is unfair.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Why is there a sense of rejection of Catholicism by some Protestants?

Beliefs probably would be a main reason for most. Just as a Catholic rejects Protestantism.

I think that if you are the one rejecting something, you feel that you must justify that rejection. There is a very human tendency, by some Protestant pastors, to explain their views by renouncing the original Church. A strong enough personal faith would not feel the need to attack other faiths.

Sadly, I have been in a few Baptist churches where the Pastor actually condemned Catholics and the RCC. I am not for that at all and find it very distasteful.

One key moment in my own conversion from Protestant to Catholic was when I acknowledged that the Catholic Church was the basis of my Protestant faith and tried to justify my rejection of the original Church. When I could no longer reject the original, I could no longer justify NOT being Catholic.

If you felt drawn there by the Holy Spirit then I wish you many blessings!

Not all Protestants hate the Catholic Church. There are many churches that come together to support and help attain a common goal, especially for their own communities. Such a broad statement is unfair.

 

[phil19034]

In the Early Church, that expression does not actually mean “the church centred in Rome”: it means “the whole church”.

Having said that, your church is an evolved version of part of that church, and so dates back to the first century.

In the sixteenth century, various political interests coincided with various theological interests, and led to certain countries and clergy splitting off from the Catholic church. This led to war. Wars produce propaganda, and some of it survives today (q.v. Jack Chick), and so some people today are taught to believe the same old stories.

The Catholic Church has always been the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, the Roman Rite wasn’t always the largest Rite of the Church, but to be Catholic one always needed to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

If you read the letters from St. Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st/2nd centuries, you will see that.

God Bless.

 

[spedteacherita]

Before I returned to the Catholic faith, I considered a reformed liturgical church and I do remember my evangelical non-liturgical friends thinking how strange that was that I would consider that. I think you are right it is a lack of understanding

Agreed. When reading this last post of yours and getting to the end your name jumped out at me, Rita, because of Saint Rita. She was considered a peacemaker, especially after losing her family. She was most essential to bringing peace to two different political factions or families.

I just thought I would mention it because she was a peacemaker and I agree this is going peacefully and I hope it continues.

saintritashrine.org/life-of-saint-rita/

amazon.com/Saint-Rita-Vittoria-Belvedere/dp/B000MTEKGO

Magdalena

Wow! Maybe my mom had a reason for naming me Rita after all - She wanted to name me Pansy Lou (shudder) after her favorite aunt.

Thanks for sharing that with me…

 

[phil19034]

As others have said, not all Protestants hate the Catholic Church.

However, I have been dealing with a number of people who do. They believe that Catholic priests and Catholics in general are pagans, who worship Mary, etc. Typically, these people who believe we are pagans and not Christian are fundamentalists.

In my experience, the ones who “hate” the Catholic Church are influenced by all or some of the following:

1. their family
2. their mis-understanding of Catholic teachings and beliefs
3. Protestant preachers who preach against the Catholic faith
4. anti-Catholic blogs and books
5. former Catholics who were not trained in the faith and bash the Church based on their mis-understandings
6. former Catholics who became dissent and refuse to live according to Catholic teaching to to the point they become protestant
7. self-identifying Catholics who mis-represent the faith and do not live a Catholic Life.
8. self-identifying Catholics who know nothing about the Bible, Christ, and/or the Faith.

To me, points 7 & 8 are the most important points. If we can fix points 7 & 8, the other points will slowly go away much faster.

God Bless

 

[Peter_J]

Why is it that most non-catholics (protestants) hate the Catholic Church?

NCism is a religion founded on hatred. Sure, different sub-groups of NCs have different names like Lutheran, Baptist, Buddhist, Anglican, etc. but that just camouflages the fact that, at heart, their whole reason to exist is to reject Catholicism.

(Okay, okay, maybe I exaggerated a little bit there, but you get the idea.)

 

[Peter_J]

It has to be remembered too, that for many protestants the label of “protestor” doesn’t really fit.

You may be right. Anyhow, as a Catholic I’m sure I really care which NCs are “Protestant” and which aren’t.

 

[Mystophilus]

It was not that Rome was not invited. The council was to deal with Eastern issues. At the time Rome was involved with another synod but did agree with the council. It was raise to an ecumenical council later by Pope Gregory the Great.

Sorry, but no. First, Rome was not invited. The reason for Rome’s never having received any invitation was most probably the fact that Rome was not in communion with Meletius, who was chairing it, but had instead recognised Paulinus, the other bishop of Antioch. They could hardly attend a council chaired by the rival of the person whom they supported.

Second, as for dealing merely with “Eastern issues”, that might have been Theodosius’ intention, but the bishops at the council rewrote the Nicene Creed, and passed canons on church governance (#2 and #3), without consulting Rome. As Hefele notes of the Council of Chalcedon, “When at that Council the creed of Constantinople was praised, repeated, and confirmed, the Papal Legates fully concurred; but when the Council also renewed and confirmed the third canon of Constantinople, the Legates left the assembly, lodged a protest against it on the following day, and declared that the rules of the hundred and fifty bishops at Constantinople were never inserted among the Synodal canons (which were recognised at Rome). The same was maintained by Pope Leo himself, who, immediately after the close of the Council of Chalcedon, wrote to Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople: “that document of certain bishops (i.e. the third canon of Constantinople) was never brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.”” Far from agreeing with Constantinople, Rome both disagreed and felt slighted about never having been consulted. Chalcedon, of course, passed its canon 28 over the personal objection of Leo of Rome (section 3).

Third, there was a Roman council in 381, but that was in autumn, after Constantinople (which had run from May to the second week of July) had finished. When Damasus of Rome did attempt to convoke another council involving the Eastern bishops, they did not attend, as they note in their letter to him from a subsequent council which they did find time to attend in Constantinople. The same letter repeatedly declares their rights to issue the canons which they issued, refers to the ordination of Flavian of Antioch at Constantinople in 381 as not only valid but supported by “the whole church” (despite Damasus of Rome’s disagreement with it, because Paulinus was still alive), and describes the 381 Council as ecumenical two hundred years before Gregory the Great expressed his reverence for it.

While I agree that the 381 Council was not actually ecumenical at that time because it did not actually reflect the views of bishops from the whole οικουμενη, the East explicitly identified it as such at the time, and continued to act against Rome’s express wishes.

What many Catholics, in particular, fail to appreciate is that the Photian Schism over the Filioque was not new, not sudden, and not at all surprising, but was instead the rather inevitable result of the enormous disjunction between the Roman view of Roman supremacy and the Greek view of Roman primacy.

 

[Mystophilus]

The Catholic Church has always been the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

That is certainly the Roman view of it, but the East frequently disagreed.

 

[Magdalena59]

Sorry, but no. First, Rome was not invited. The reason for Rome’s never having received any invitation was most probably the fact that Rome was not in communion with Meletius, who was chairing it, but had instead recognised Paulinus, the other bishop of Antioch. They could hardly attend a council chaired by the rival of the person whom they supported.

Second, as for dealing merely with “Eastern issues”, that might have been Theodosius’ intention, but the bishops at the council rewrote the Nicene Creed, and passed canons on church governance (#2 and #3), without consulting Rome. As Hefele notes of the Council of Chalcedon, “When at that Council the creed of Constantinople was praised, repeated, and confirmed, the Papal Legates fully concurred; but when the Council also renewed and confirmed the third canon of Constantinople, the Legates left the assembly, lodged a protest against it on the following day, and declared that the rules of the hundred and fifty bishops at Constantinople were never inserted among the Synodal canons (which were recognised at Rome). The same was maintained by Pope Leo himself, who, immediately after the close of the Council of Chalcedon, wrote to Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople: “that document of certain bishops (i.e. the third canon of Constantinople) was never brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.”” Far from agreeing with Constantinople, Rome both disagreed and felt slighted about never having been consulted. Chalcedon, of course, passed its canon 28 over the personal objection of Leo of Rome (section 3).

Third, there was a Roman council in 381, but that was in autumn, after Constantinople (which had run from May to the second week of July) had finished. When Damasus of Rome did attempt to convoke another council involving the Eastern bishops, they did not attend, as they note in their letter to him from a subsequent council which they did find time to attend in Constantinople. The same letter repeatedly declares their rights to issue the canons which they issued, refers to the ordination of Flavian of Antioch at Constantinople in 381 as not only valid but supported by “the whole church” (despite Damasus of Rome’s disagreement with it, because Paulinus was still alive), and describes the 381 Council as ecumenical two hundred years before Gregory the Great expressed his reverence for it.

While I agree that the 381 Council was not actually ecumenical at that time because it did not actually reflect the views of bishops from the whole οικουμενη, the East explicitly identified it as such at the time, and continued to act against Rome’s express wishes.

What many Catholics, in particular, fail to appreciate is that the Photian Schism over the Filioque was not new, not sudden, and not at all surprising, but was instead the rather inevitable result of the enormous disjunction between the Roman view of Roman supremacy and the Greek view of Roman primacy.

That is certainly the Roman view of it, but the East frequently disagreed.

These are the reasons God gave us his Church. These are the reasons we need God’s Church. Without it there is chaos and people arguing over what this means and what that means and who started what and who said what.

It is unfathomable to think that God would call us to be one and pray for us to be one and then not provide a way. It is unfathomable to think that He wants us to do all this arguing.

This always draws me closer to his Church.

Here is a cool website on Catholic and Orthodox relations.

theosismedia.com/sister-churches/

God bless.

 

[Mystophilus]

It is unfathomable to think that God would call us to be one and pray for us to be one and then not provide a way. It is unfathomable to think that He wants us to do all this arguing.

I wholeheartedly agree that God wants unity for the Church.

There are, nonetheless, difficulties regarding how that unity should be achieved today just as there were difficulties in the past regarding how unity should operate, and one of the biggest difficulties now is the apparent unwillingness of people on both sides to appreciate how people on the other side have felt.