Protestant/catholic Relationship

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340834402' post='2449651']
But since i find a majority of [s]catholics[/s] [b]people[/b] don't really know what the church teaches ...
[/quote]

fixed it for you!

(This is my way of letting you know that I like you. I never bother to correct insufferable jerks. Yes, I have a horrible sense of humor. I'm Catholic because they have to forgive me.)

I don't understand your question about monastic behaviour. I thought that monastic behaviour was derived from smaller Jewish sects, like the Essenes, but I haven't studied it.

[Papist]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340734881' post='2449116']
And while I go and contemplate what has been presented (in that merit seems to be quite like unto what some Protestants call "Lordship Salvation," though it is indeed telling that google wants to add "heresy" to the end of that.) and come up with more questions on the theology of the Church (and find that book by Kreeft) I do wish to ask the general Catholic population here if protestants have ever tried to convert you xD. I find that those who leave the church and join protestant ones tend to not have a deep understanding of the doctrine which they left (and in that regard, I do find [b]the Catholic church lacking[/b]) and protestants don't seek to understand catholic doctrine so I also find that among many protestants there is a belief that Catholics are a false church (which does bother be because it ignores the 1,000 years of church history between Augustine and Luther)
[/quote]

The Church being lacking is not determined by a person's experience at a single parish. I would say that the protestant churches do a better job of fellowship, which is mostly led by the congregation, not the church's office. I am struggling to understand where you are going with the Catholic/Protestant differences.

[sixpence]

Hi TJH!
No protestant has ever tried to convert me. A few atheist/agnostics have though!
Ramblings::
From my extremely limited experience with attending a nondenom church, I felt like the messages in the lecture were mainly very similar to what one would hear in an average homily, nothing more complex than what a grade schooler might understand, the music was the same way. That is pretty much where the similarity ended for me. It felt like they were missing out on lots of fun more complex theology and terminology etc etc. I have a friend who is a fallen away Catholic who always complains about all the terminology and complexities as if they were a bad. I think this might be ONE reason Catholics seem to have a harder time teaching/learning about their faith; it is just seems that much more complicated. (I certainly don't pretend to understand it all.) Keep in mind though, this is just based on experience at a single protestant church!

[timwho]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340844211' post='2449713']
The Church being lacking is not determined by a person's experience at a single parish. I would say that the protestant churches do a better job of fellowship, which is mostly led by the congregation, not the church's office. I am struggling to understand where you are going with the Catholic/Protestant differences.
[/quote]

I'm not really going anywhere with them, they're just my perceptions of the Church as an outsider. I find many catholic doctrines beautiful and deep, and far more developed than protestant equivalents (opponents?). And in a world where I see beauty as truth (in many ways) it does call into question what I believe myself and why, hence my presence here. I seek to better understand church history, catholic theology, and my own understanding of what it means to be Christian.

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1340846397' post='2449741']
It felt like they were missing out on lots of fun more complex theology and terminology etc etc. I have a friend who is a fallen away Catholic who always complains about all the terminology and complexities as if they were a bad. I think this might be ONE reason Catholics seem to have a harder time teaching/learning about their faith; it is just seems that much more complicated. (I certainly don't pretend to understand it all.) Keep in mind though, this is just based on experience at a single protestant church!
[/quote]

I guess i'm also biased towards my experiences in that I grew up around many fundamentalists (even in the north-east) and they did stress an understanding of scripture more than I find in my current church. Protestant understanding of scripture is wide and varied as the number of denominations that exist (20,000? more? idk). But that's what you get when you have fundamentalists on one hand and people that deny the existence of Jesus on the other, being Christian in name only.

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1340838178' post='2449667']
I don't understand your question about monastic behaviour. I thought that monastic behaviour was derived from smaller Jewish sects, like the Essenes, but I haven't studied it.
[/quote]

My Question was more on Church doctrine. Can it change? This question stems from what I read about the Christological debates of the 5th century. Like is doctrine something that can waver until a council nails it down in church canon?

[Papist]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340852604' post='2449788']
I'm not really going anywhere with them, they're just my perceptions of the Church as an outsider. I find many catholic doctrines beautiful and deep, and far more developed than protestant equivalents (opponents?). And in a world where I see beauty as truth (in many ways) it does call into question what I believe myself and why, hence my presence here. I seek to better understand church history, catholic theology, and my own understanding of what it means to be Christian.

I guess i'm also biased towards my experiences in that I grew up around many fundamentalists (even in the north-east) and they did stress an understanding of scripture more than I find in my current church. Protestant understanding of scripture is wide and varied as the number of denominations that exist (20,000? more? idk). But that's what you get when you have fundamentalists on one hand and people that deny the existence of Jesus on the other, being Christian in name only.

My Question was more on Church doctrine. Can it change? This question stems from what I read about the Christological debates of the 5th century. Like is doctrine something that can waver until a council nails it down in church canon?
[/quote]

I like your honesty. I think you are doing yourself a disservice by focusing on the difference. When studying the Catholic Church and her teachings to learn, I believe it best to not weigh it against other faiths/beliefs, but process her teachings separate from any preconceptions. I don't know if I am making sense. I have heard too many protestant preachers preach what/why Catholic Church wrong in their sermon. I always thought that is odd and have never understood why that is, perhaps he knows there are ex-catholics in the pews. IDK. I always thought it should be that he preach what/why his church is right.

That said, IMO, the biggest difference is authority. Protestants say Bible is their authority. But I have yet to receive a reasonable answer to how they handle differences in faith[e.g. baptism] when they all are using the same source for their authority. Where do they go? Here's the punchline...the Bible says take it to the Church[Matthew 18:15-20], and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth[1 Timothy 3:15]

[MIKolbe]

Can doctrine change?

depends what you mean by change, i suppose...

If you mean can doctrine develop, as a baby develops into an adult? yes.

If you mean can doctrine contradict itself, as in 1500 year ago we believed "X", but today we are much smarter and "X" is wrong and "Y" is what we believe now? no.

[Papist]

The Church may present doctrine in a different form or language, but the truth within it would not change.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Timothy J. Hutama' timestamp='1340852604' post='2449788']
My Question was more on Church doctrine. Can it change? This question stems from what I read about the Christological debates of the 5th century. Like is doctrine something that can waver until a council nails it down in church canon?
[/quote]

I just did some reading on the Christological debates.
(mostly [url="http://www.nestorian.org/the_christological_controversi.html"]http://www.nestorian...ontroversi.html[/url] & [url="http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk4.htm"]http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk4.htm[/url] among other googled sources)

To me, much of it seemed to be semantics and politics. For the most part, they all seemed to agree that Jesus is God and Man. Some people insisted that teaching two natures meant there were two sons and that it divided the indivisible. Some focused on the divine nature over the human nature of Christ (monophysitism), but minimizing the human nature led to the conclusion that Christ could not save us because he was not [i]really[/i] a man. After a few councils, The [i]Definition of Chalcedon[/i] was written (451):

Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance ([i]homoousious[/i]) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer ([i]Theotokos[/i]); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.

I'm not sure whether the history leading to this definition would be considered doctrinal backpedaling, since the 2nd Council of Ephesus was completely repudiated.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1340888847' post='2449938']
Can doctrine change?

depends what you mean by change, i suppose...

If you mean can doctrine develop, as a baby develops into an adult? yes.

If you mean can doctrine contradict itself, as in 1500 year ago we believed "X", but today we are much smarter and "X" is wrong and "Y" is what we believe now? no.
[/quote]

Ok here is where the confusion seems to be.

*Dogma is a formally revealed truth found in Scripture and/or Tradition and must be accepted by the faithful.

*Doctrine are those terms and definitions we use to explain the dogma. Over 2000 years we have sharpened and refined and detailed the explanations, as near as you can get to explaining mysteries, and sometimes we change the emphasis, but the Dogmas DON"T change. Little doctrines do not grow up to be dogmas . :D.

*Disciplines are the forms we use, they are not infallible and can be changed- such as the way we receive Communion, how we go to Confession and what age we receive Confirmation etc.

*Devotions are things like First Friday devotions, the Rosary, belief in various appariations approved by the Church.

[timwho]

Mmm I do wonder, how would you respond to this pastor if you had the opportunity for an open discussion. Is his criticism of catholic theology accurate (being on a catholic forum the answer is no so why xD)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItX-vG06QFk[/media]

I feel the the central division between catholicism and protestantism (and thus my main qualm with catholic/othrodox/coptic theology) is justification, the centre difference of reformed theology.

I feel what he says does line up with what I read in the catechism (and my now obtained copy of Kreeft's book), albeit in a very negative way.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Timothy J. Hutama

[MIKolbe]

only 3 minutes into it...but..wow..completely wrong...

but a very interesting way he attempt to state it... he gets some of his main points correct, but then explains them incorrectly....

but, speaking for me, I don't 'do' all these things like Mass, confession, and good works, BECAUSE I want grace. That is works salvation. I do them because I love God and wish to bring the love of Jesus to others. Will God infuse grace into me, yes (to the limit of my ability/willingness to receive it)..But I am not motivated by fear. One thing he neglected to mention (granted I only heard 3 minutes) is any sort of relationship with God. A personal relationship with Jesus seemed to be lacking in his expert assessment of Catholic Theology.

One part that I would question would be if Justification is a one time event, how does he explain David, and his justification before and after his murder and adultery? How can it be a one time event if he seemingly was justified twice? Further, why did Paul find himself unworthy of heaven is justification was a one time event? Why did he tell Philipians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling? Why 'work it out', if they were already justified?

Further, would he be able to explain any relationship that simply takes one and only one affirmation, and then that's it? I said yes to my wife 12 years ago....but let me tell you I have messed up that relationship and had to ask for forgiveness from my wife. My relationship, or any relationship, is an on going journey in love, not just a stop at the mini mart.

His pontification about confession, mortal and venial sins psuedo accurate and off the mark.


Here is an article ( a short one) from Mark Shea, in which he used much of the same terminology the good pastor used, in which you can see the pastor's folly:



[quote]

Recently, the Mainstream Media (MSM) got itself all in a tizzy about “the Vatican” supposedly issuing “seven new deadly sins”. As one particularly egregious headline put it “Recycle or go to hell, warns Vatican”.

Given this view of the Faith, discussions in the press then break down into inane prattle about mortal and venial sin. Here, for instance, is Slate explaining it all for you:

What kinds of sins aren't deadly?

The venial ones. The Catholic Church divides sinful behavior into two categories: mortal and venial. (The distinction wasn't widespread until the medieval period.) Mortal sins are those that the sinner knows are serious but nonetheless decides to perform. They include the seven deadly sins as well as countless others, like witchcraft or skipping out on Sunday Mass. Other indiscretions, including any that were carried out by an ignorant or unwilling sinner, fall into the venial category. So do lesser versions of the mortal sins; for example, mild overeating would be a venial sin whereas gluttony is deadly. With both types, you can wipe the slate clean with confession and repentance, but only unrepented mortal sins can condemn you to eternal hell.

What is absent from all this is any concept of life in Christ as relationship. All you get are rules, written on a card and magnetized to the refrigerator. Break rules on Card A and the Divine Administrator puts in the record that you are slated for Hell. Break rules on Card B and the Divine Administrator marks down the infraction and gives you a warning. Earn enough infractions and the Sin Monitor Task Force transfers your name to the “Go to Hell” file. However, if you do the theological equivalent of filling out a waiver by going to Confession, the Divine Administrator will, for inscrutable reasons, round file your sin folder and let you start over.

The goal of the Christian life, in this scenario, is to die with your sin folder empty. Then God has to let you into Heaven, which is this beautiful place that has nothing to do with Him really. It's just a pretty park where your favorite dead people have been standing around waiting for you to arrive. The notion of a life of virtue spent trying to cultivate a relationship with God never enters the picture. It's just a question of keeping and breaking rules. And nobody (in the MSM) really knows why one rule is more important than another. Indeed, some of the rules appear to have nothing whatever do with anything, if you judge by the portrayal of the MSM. A mortal sin to miss Mass? That one must have been stuck in by the Church to try to control people. Hey! Everybody lusts. Downgrade that one to venial. And if we are going to have rule to control people, why not put something in there about banning SUVs? Destroying the earth is more serious than missing Mass you know! Surely God is madder about that (of course, he’s mad about pretty much every infraction so it’s hard to tell.)

In the same way, Hell seems to have nothing to do with relationship in the modern mind. I constantly meet people who think of Hell as an absurdly sadistic overreaction by a touchy God who gets irrationally angry when people don't keep his arbitrary rules. Or else it’s something that falls on the head of innocent people like a safe from a third floor window: “How can you believe in a God who would damn to Hell people who were doing their best, just because they never heard of Jesus?” Prescinding from the fact that the Church believes no such thing, what is striking is that again this notion of Hell has not one thing to do with relationship. There is not the slightest grasp that Hell is the "definitive self-exclusion" of a soul from the society of God. Hell is not some arbitrary punishment that God sticks on us like postage stamps because we got too many infractions in the file or forgot to get a waiver. It is Hitler (or maybe you or me) looking squarely at the offer of relationship with God and man he systematically destroyed and blaming everybody else for his choices. It is the human heart walling itself off finally and utterly from relationship with God and man in idiotic pride. It is any of us, making the final choice to be bricked round in the furnace of ourselves.

In short, people don't seem to grasp that Heaven is simply the fruit of a life that pursues relationship with God on His terms and Hell is simply the fruit of a life that pursues its own course on its own terms. Mortal and venial sins are useful distinctions, to be sure. But if you turn them into another way of trying to be saved by law, you are stone deaf to the most elementary teaching of the gospel: that only Christ, not law, can save us.[/quote]

[Adrestia]

This is what I noticed after one pass through that YouTube video.

I do not operate under fear, but I can't speak for others. Our work doesn't get us into heaven. We (Catholics) didn't invent purgatory.

My understanding of salvation (which is still forming) is that it is a life long series of decisions. At every moment we can choose salvation (by cooperating with God) or choose beaver damation (by disobeying God). I could be wrong.

He seems to have a very poor understanding of Catholic teachings on justification; he's just using big words out of context.

Where's Cappie when we need him?

[Adrestia]

Eek. I though I misspelled dam[i]n[/i]ation. stupid fi[i]lt[/i]er.

Also, that dude in the video assumes that Catholics do Catholic things to get grace - like we can earn God's grace by going to church more or praying more "beads" or confessing more. According to my sophomoric understanding, grace is a free gift from God, nothing we do can earn it. All we can do is choose to receive it.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Adrestia

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1341283636' post='2451763'] According to my sophomoric understanding, grace is a free gift from God, nothing we do can earn it. All we can do is choose to receive it.[/quote]

and that by praying, receiving the Sacraments, etc, we open ourselves more fully to receive His grace? i dunno...it's late.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1341291642' post='2451834']
and that by praying, receiving the Sacraments, etc, we open ourselves more fully to receive His grace? i dunno...it's late.
[/quote]

I think that's right, as long as those things are what God wants. Daily mass is great, but not if it prevents one from dropping his kids off at school on time or if it takes the place of studying for finals. We have responsibilities. Performing them with great love can also open us to receive God's grace (I think).