Why don't Protestants learn Catholic Church history?

[Peter_J]

Well put and good post. FollowChrist34.

I must admit that it becomes tiresome to me and makes me want to quit even participating in CAF when I read from those who consider non-Catholic Christians like me to be inferior and lacking in so many ways. In fact, not too long ago I left CAF for over a month because of it and almost didn’t return.

Not to make excuses, but you have to keep in mind our fear of what might be read into our words. In this case, if I said “I don’t say that you’re inferior” a Protestant might say “Oh, so then you don’t believe that we are in error?”

 

[jmcrae]

Can you tell me what the “that” was in this statement? I’m still not clear on what statement of mine you were referring to (if it was in fact a statement of mine).

Sorry; my comment was in reaction to LittleSheep’s statement that you were quoting - that to be a Protestant all one need do is disbelieve a teaching of the Church, or disobey a precept of the Church. This would suggest that Protestantism itself is predicated on unbelief and disobedience as its primary mission, rather than as a side effect of good intentions gone wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry; my comment was in reaction to LittleSheep’s statement that you were quoting - that to be a Protestant all one need do is disbelieve a teaching of the Church, or disobey a precept of the Church.

Ahhh … when I read your post, I couldn’t figure out what you had meant to quote.

This would suggest that Protestantism itself is predicated on unbelief and disobedience as its primary mission, rather than as a side effect of good intentions gone wrong.

Well, I wouldn’t say it means that exactly … But I do definitely think that many Protestant posters define themselves in terms of what they aren’t. (Perhaps I’ll start a poll: Protestant poster, do you describe yourself as “a member of a non-Catholic religion”?)

 

[Little_Sheep]

Well, I wouldn’t say it means that exactly … But I do definitely think that many Protestant posters define themselves in terms of what they aren’t. (Perhaps I’ll start a poll: Protestant poster, do you describe yourself as “a member of a non-Catholic religion”?)

This gave me a chuckle. The title of this thread is “Why don’t Protestants learn Catholic Church History?” I and others responded to that specific question and knocked around some different ideas. Under those conditions, it is risible for someone to make a logical leap to 'Protestants define themselves in terms of what they aren’t."

Perhaps you should start a thread that says, “Protestants, describe your denomination’s history to us.” In charity, I assume you would start that thread because you are actually curious about those things.

I live in the land of Baptists and I can assure you that most of those people would post enthusiastically without even thinking about Catholicism when they speak of their own faith history.

Clearly, a well-educated Episcopalian would have more of a connection to Catholic history, but I’ve never even heard a well-educated Anglican describe themselves as non-Catholic.

There are so many ways to be salt and light to this weary world. Christian differences do not define a Christian.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, I wouldn’t say it means that exactly … But I do definitely think that many Protestant posters define themselves in terms of what they aren’t. (Perhaps I’ll start a poll: Protestant poster, do you describe yourself as “a member of a non-Catholic religion”?)

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is a free country. …

Besides, it can be effective. … In affects name change of others. We were not Roman Catholics last time but are now in order that we are not mistaken for them (the other catholics).

 

[Peter_J]

This gave me a chuckle. The title of this thread is “Why don’t Protestants learn Catholic Church History?” I and others responded to that specific question and knocked around some different ideas. Under those conditions, it is risible for someone to make a logical leap to 'Protestants define themselves in terms of what they aren’t."

Hi LS. I don’t wish to spend more time arguing with you, given how large the internet is (nothing to do with the fact that you’re Protestant); I’ll just remind you and the readers of what you said earlier: that you don’t believe it is setting a low bar for belonging to protestantism to say that Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholic Church believes automatically become Protestants.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Hi LS. I don’t wish to spend more time arguing with you, given how large the internet is (nothing to do with the fact that you’re Protestant); I’ll just remind you and the readers of what you said earlier: that you don’t believe it is setting a low bar for belonging to protestantism to say that Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholic Church believes automatically become Protestants.

I believe we may move in separate circles of logic, Peter J.

Not once did I say that “Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholic Church believes automatically become Protestant” or anything all about that being a low bar. You have said that.

What I did was ask this question: “Do you consider self-identified Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholic Church believes to be Protestants?”

I would have preferred less snark and more substance from your posts. I mean, I certainly “get” your answer, but to try to put that answer in my mouth is a disingenuous.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe we may move in separate circles of logic, Peter J.

Not once did I say that “Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholic Church believes automatically become Protestant” or anything all about that being a low bar. You have said that.

Yes, I said that it was a low bar. You responded: “Low bar…hardly, my friend.”

What I did was ask this question: “Do you consider self-identified Catholics who don’t accept everything the Catholic Church believes to be Protestants?”

I would have preferred less snark and more substance from your posts. I mean, I certainly “get” your answer, but to try to put that answer in my mouth is a disingenuous.

More attacks from you? Should I be surprised?

There are a great many Protestant posters (very possibly more than Catholic posters, I never counted) whose writings I read, but I have to draw a line somewhere.

Good day to you.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Yes, I said that it was a low bar. You responded: “Low bar…hardly, my friend.”

More attacks from you? Should I be surprised?

There are a great many Protestant posters (very possibly more than Catholic posters, I never counted) whose writings I read, but I have to draw a line somewhere.

Good day to you.

Separate circles of logic.

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry; my comment was in reaction to LittleSheep’s statement that you were quoting - that to be a Protestant all one need do is disbelieve a teaching of the Church, or disobey a precept of the Church. This would suggest that Protestantism itself is predicated on unbelief and disobedience as its primary mission, rather than as a side effect of good intentions gone wrong.

I’m reluctant to say this, but this ^^ post goes too far IMO. Take it as you will.

 

[Peter_J]

Not sure what you mean by this. All fruits, grapes, are comparable.That is, not necessarily the same but certainly any grape is or shall be ‘examined’ by the Owner. We are all comparable, to His standard. I am going by your analogy that cut off branches are planted in different "traditional "soil (that is Cathy, Olivia, Lucy etc. have their own traditions/soils.) Perhaps you are saying only Cathy or Olivia have traditional soil , or will be approved ?Again, what was the “wild” idea ? Wild in scriptural analysis metaphor is that which is planted by the enemy . Is it:

“At best the fruit really determines the quality of essence, not the root . And the fruit justifies the root , branch and vine.” or,:

“Indeed some grape varieties are better than others, even for different purposes even “flavors”, but they are all still “grapes”. From all of them the Lord will press a perfect wine for His Wedding.”

As to my first statement, it does not deny "tradition, or the importance of soil etc. What I am trying to reduce is overemphasis, or assumptions that tradition is the paramount determinant, or that we can determine that before any tasting from the Owner.

From the latter statement, the context is questioning whether the only acceptable grapes at harvest time will be only from one tradition/soil or will some grapes be accepted from all ?

Have you determined which plants will be cut down and burned ?.

I agree context is needed. Certainly one can judge traditions, soils, even observe their fruits. The Owner tells us that this is possible.

Yet as Wannano points out, there is another context, and that is our individual soil. So it is a tough analogy, for it is apparent that not all of Cathy’s or Olivia’s or Lucy’s fruit will be acceptable. You may be in the right soil, right vine but not bear fruit, and be cut off. And now we can define, in another context, what is true Soil and Vine , and that being Christ Himself. Now we are out of hierarchical, governance, specific set of beliefs, context to explicit dependence on the Owner himself. That is, what is the grapes identity? Is it , “I am of Cathy”, or," I am of Olivia" or “of Lucy” or , “I am in Christ first and foremost, and in one of the former three secondarily” ? Somehow your analogy must and does account that indeed all three are bearing positive fruit. Therefore it is problematic today to judge, as we are told to, which is more legit than the other.

Another problem is ORAR. Once Right Always Right, That is, because a soil and branch delivered good fruit once, do not assume it will always continue to do so. Also, how do you determine what is legit pruning ? And I would question whether “other” fruit (Lucy) is because of new planting, in new soil, or is it really grafting onto the One True Vine, or a cutting away of old to allow the original good fruit to come forth again ? I don’t think scriptural analogies cite any new planting (except for bad/evil) but cultivating always of the True Vine.

One has to make a decision, for the Owner never said good fruit can come from bad soil /vine. Even Vat 2 says these other branches are bearing good fruit, and therefore can not be a “new” planting, in it’s own “soil”. Another words, Olivia is not a new planting from Cathy in different soil, as is Lucy not a new planting out of Cathy, in new soil.

The Catholic analogy is contradictory.

But thanks for the dialogue. These are just my thoughts and certainly open to refinement.

Blessings

Interesting post, Benhur.

I know there are many Protestants who refuse any adjective in front of “Christian” … it might interest you that, in another recent discussion, a number (I didn’t count, but several) Catholic said that they refuse any adjective in front of “Catholic”.

 

[rcwitness]

Another problem is ORAR. Once Right Always Right, That is, because a soil and branch delivered good fruit once, do not assume it will always continue to do so. Also, how do you determine what is legit pruning ? And I would question whether “other” fruit (Lucy) is because of new planting, in new soil, or is it really grafting onto the One True Vine, or a cutting away of old to allow the original good fruit to come forth again ? I don’t think scriptural analogies cite any new planting (except for bad/evil) but cultivating always of the True Vine.

Hey Ben,

I’ve seen this idea from you several times now. I’d like to express my reaction.

The Church’s doctrine of Infallibility should not be understood as “the Magisterium was correct once, therefore is always correct.”

It is more like this statement from the Vatican Council:

“The doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”

The Church (Universal), which Jesus built on the Apostles, was given the means to declare matters of faith and morals as bound on earth and heaven. The circumstances of Infallibility have parameters, AND it doesn’t imply that only the Magisterium is able to know the Truth… only that she is protected from error when declaring the Truth under these conditions. And only her decree binds on the whole Church.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Not sure what you mean by this. All fruits, grapes, are comparable.That is, not necessarily the same but certainly any grape is or shall be ‘examined’ by the Owner. We are all comparable, to His standard. I am going by your analogy that cut off branches are planted in different "traditional "soil (that is Cathy, Olivia, Lucy etc. have their own traditions/soils.) Perhaps you are saying only Cathy or Olivia have traditional soil , or will be approved ?Again, what was the “wild” idea ? Wild in scriptural analysis metaphor is that which is planted by the enemy . Is it:

“At best the fruit really determines the quality of essence, not the root . And the fruit justifies the root , branch and vine.” or,:

“Indeed some grape varieties are better than others, even for different purposes even “flavors”, but they are all still “grapes”. From all of them the Lord will press a perfect wine for His Wedding.”

As to my first statement, it does not deny "tradition, or the importance of soil etc. What I am trying to reduce is overemphasis, or assumptions that tradition is the paramount determinant, or that we can determine that before any tasting from the Owner.

From the latter statement, the context is questioning whether the only acceptable grapes at harvest time will be only from one tradition/soil or will some grapes be accepted from all ?

Have you determined which plants will be cut down and burned ?.

I agree context is needed. Certainly one can judge traditions, soils, even observe their fruits. The Owner tells us that this is possible.

Yet as Wannano points out, there is another context, and that is our individual soil. So it is a tough analogy, for it is apparent that not all of Cathy’s or Olivia’s or Lucy’s fruit will be acceptable. You may be in the right soil, right vine but not bear fruit, and be cut off. And now we can define, in another context, what is true Soil and Vine , and that being Christ Himself. Now we are out of hierarchical, governance, specific set of beliefs, context to explicit dependence on the Owner himself. That is, what is the grapes identity? Is it , “I am of Cathy”, or," I am of Olivia" or “of Lucy” or , “I am in Christ first and foremost, and in one of the former three secondarily” ? Somehow your analogy must and does account that indeed all three are bearing positive fruit. Therefore it is problematic today to judge, as we are told to, which is more legit than the other.

Another problem is ORAR. Once Right Always Right, That is, because a soil and branch delivered good fruit once, do not assume it will always continue to do so. Also, how do you determine what is legit pruning ? And I would question whether “other” fruit (Lucy) is because of new planting, in new soil, or is it really grafting onto the One True Vine, or a cutting away of old to allow the original good fruit to come forth again ? I don’t think scriptural analogies cite any new planting (except for bad/evil) but cultivating always of the True Vine.

One has to make a decision, for the Owner never said good fruit can come from bad soil /vine. Even Vat 2 says these other branches are bearing good fruit, and therefore can not be a “new” planting, in it’s own “soil”. Another words, Olivia is not a new planting from Cathy in different soil, as is Lucy not a new planting out of Cathy, in new soil.

The Catholic analogy is contradictory.

But thanks for the dialogue. These are just my thoughts and certainly open to refinement.

Blessings

I will just state a few things:

1. Comparable can mean belonging to the same class of things, in which case you are correct that all grapes are comparable. However, comparable can also mean, “of the same quality,” in which case it is perfectly fine to say that some grapes are not comparable to others. I was using the latter meaning.
2. Yes, it has been decided which plants will be cut down - those plants that are not the original one planted by God.
3. Tradition is the paramount determinant, as it is crucial to creating a context conducive to coaxing the desired flavour from the grapes.
4. Obviously, the Vintager tastes the fruit after. When I speak of the vines having different qualities of fruit, I was speaking in generalities. Obviously some clusters on the original vine may have lower quality grapes and some clusters on the new vines may have high quality grapes. The Vintager may certainly decide to discard some of the fruit of the original vine, while keeping some of the fruit of the new vine, but that doesn’t change the fact that he will cut down the new vines. It is a separate issue.
5. My emphasis on the original vine was centered on the fact that it was what was planted by the Vintager. It was not a ORAR sentiment, but a sentiment of, “that which God Himself plants and commands us not to separate from is probably the intended and rightful one.” Perhaps we do not agree on this point.

 

[Peter_J]

1. Yes, it has been decided which plants will be cut down - those plants that are not the original one planted by God.

Then wouldn’t I (a Catholic) conclude that God is going to “cut down” the Orthodox Churches?

 

[rcwitness]

Then wouldn’t I (a Catholic) conclude that God is going to “cut down” the Orthodox Churches?

No! God is not going to “cut down” any particular church.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Then wouldn’t I (a Catholic) conclude that God is going to “cut down” the Orthodox Churches?

If you consider the Orthodox Churches to be new Churches, then you could indeed conclude that.

Though, admittedly, the case of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) is a bit more ambiguous, IMO. It was never uncommon for some sees to break communion with other sees and then reunite. Often one side was not really “the right side” (despite what each thought at the time) and in retrospect, no one really serious sees one group as having been outside the Chruch. In the absence of an ecumenical council condemning either side, I think a person could argue that we have just had a long temporary break.

So, I suppose it largely boils down to how you see the Orthodox Churches in respect to the Catholic Churches. I have seen Catholics express both ends of the spectrum. (Time will reveal who is correct, I suppose. )

 

[rcwitness]

If you consider the Orthodox Churches to be new Churches, then you could indeed conclude that.

Though, admittedly, the case of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) is a bit more ambiguous, IMO. It was never uncommon for some sees to break communion with other sees and then reunite. Often one side was not really “the right side” (despite what each thought at the time) and in retrospect, no one really serious sees one group as having been outside the Chruch. In the absence of an ecumenical council condemning either side, I think a person could argue that we have just had a long temporary break.

So, I suppose it largely boils down to how you see the Orthodox Churches in respect to the Catholic Churches. I have seen Catholics express both ends of the spectrum. (Time will reveal who is correct, I suppose. )

I don’t think either of our faith traditions consider condiser Jesus to “cut down” churches. Remove His “Lampstand” or “Hidden Manna” perhaps, but “cut down”?

Only individuals will be cut off from the living at His judgement, right? Along with, and maybe because of their departure or refusal of the Truth.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I don’t think either of our faith traditions consider condiser Jesus to “cut down” churches. Remove His “Lampstand” or “Hidden Manna” perhaps, but “cut down”?

Only individuals will be cut off from the living at His judgement, right? Along with, and maybe because of their departure or refusal of the Truth.

I am pretty sure both our faith traditions believe that in Paradise there will only be the one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ created. It follows then that any other churches, must cease to exist. So, yes, they will be “cut down.”

Unless you believe all faiths and religions are the same? Tell me, what is His “Hidden Manna?” Is that not Himself, which is Life itself? If God removes communion with Life from a church, are they not become dead. Seems to me that “removing His ‘Hidden Manna’” and “cutting down” mean the same, and your objection is more rooted in “cutting down” not sounding “nice.”

Only persons will be judged as you say. What is your point? What does that have to do with anything? I never implied that each church is going to come before Christ as a group to be judged on the Last Day.

Perhaps I am not understanding you. Please clarify. We may be talking past each other.

 

[Peter_J]

(Time will reveal who is correct, I suppose. )

Well to paraphrase Homer, it won’t be the Unitarians.

If you consider the Orthodox Churches to be new Churches, then you could indeed conclude that.

Though, admittedly, the case of our Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) is a bit more ambiguous, IMO. **It was never uncommon for some sees to break communion with other sees and then reunite. **

Indeed. And, relating this back to misunderstandings of history, one of my pet peeves is when people say that we’ve been in schism since 1054 because that’s when those anathemas etc. etc.

 

[rcwitness]

I am pretty sure both our faith traditions believe that in Paradise there will only be the one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ created. It follows then that any other churches, must cease to exist. So, yes, they will be “cut down.”

I’m not sure “the Church” will exist at our arrival with Him in heaven, in all aspects. The Sacraments, for example, will no longer be necessary. And the weeds will be separated from the wheat. But yes, the Church in the sense of its true members and Truth itself. Likewise, other Christians who are not in full communion with the One, Catholic and Apostolic Church will enter into heaven, if they are accepted by Him.

Unless you believe all faiths and religions are the same?

Certainly not.

Tell me, what is His “Hidden Manna?” Is that not Himself, which is Life itself? If God removes communion with Life from a church, are they not become dead. Seems to me that “removing His ‘Hidden Manna’” and “cutting down” mean the same, and your objection is more rooted in “cutting down” not sounding “nice.”

Hidden Manna is His body and blood sent by the Word and Spirit. Removing this does not disqualify everything about the church. We believe many protestant “churches” do receive the Spirit and lead many into salvation. They also contain error, which is dangerous and harmful to the whole body! We also believe that the Bishop of Rome is the instrument God uses to remove the Sacrament.

Only persons will be judged as you say. What is your point? What does that have to do with anything? I never implied that each church is going to come before Christ as a group to be judged on the Last Day.

My point is that “churches” will not be judged, but individuals and how much they have accepted and lived according to the One Catholic and Apostolic Faith delivered and kept by the Church.

Perhaps I am not understanding you. Please clarify. We may be talking past each other.

Yes, I hope I have helped. I think we were speaking “past” one another.