SWB: Came
across this gem the other day. I don’t know why I do this to myself. It just irks
me. The anti-Catholic ignorance and the latent hostility are unnecessary and unneeded.
It certainly did not live up to its seemingly even-handed title. Sad.
Thought I’d give the other side to this decidedly one-sided answer. My answers are in blue, but also labeled SWB (St. Walburga's Blog) in case the colors cannot be seen.
Question:
"Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"
SWB: Maybe
others can see that this article seems like it would be balanced. However, I was mistaken as gotquestions.org claims to be a "volunteer ministry of dedicated and trained servants who have a desire
to assist others in their understanding of God, Scripture, salvation,
and other spiritual topics. We are Christian, Protestant, conservative,
evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational." If I'd read that in the first place, I'd have understand that the article would not be balanced.
Answer: [1st para] This
is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying
degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups.
SWB: True. There is often
animosity between two “religious groups.” However, Catholics and Protestants
are both Christian groups. We should
have much, much less animosity and much more brotherhood and cooperation. Sure
there are doctrinal differences and many prejudices but we are still on the
same side. We are all doing our best to follow our Lord’s teachings to the best
of our ability.
This particular
battle is rooted in history.
SWB: Obviously, “This
particular battle” refers to Protestants v. Catholics, but the author does not
state it here.
Degrees of reaction
have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical
dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder
of Protestants at the hands of Rome.
SWB:First of all, very little
“persecution and murder” happened to Protestants at Catholic hands. If the author is referring to the approximately
300 years of the Medieval Inquisition, there were in fact less than 300
heretics (not Protestants) convicted
or executed; the except to that fact was one “inquisitor” who persecuted the
Cathars (a Catholic order of knights)
for political reasons and had them declared heretics and had dozens of them executed,
leading to the end of the medieval inquisition sanctioned by Rome. And, if this
person or any Protestant researched history they’d learn that most people in
the middle ages preferred to be tried by the inquisition than local courts
because they were guaranteed a much more fair trial. (Just a side note: The
Catholic Church did not try or burn anyone accused of being a witch. That was
the Protestants, who brought about the death of many women in the “new world.” Catholic inquisitors generally felt such accusations were nonsense.)
SWB: Second, if the author is
referring to the Roman Inquisition which only had jurisdiction in Rome and the
papal states and continued into the 18th century, it only tried a
few dozen “heretics” executing a handful in its about 200 year existence. If he is referring to the Spanish Inquisition
of 1492 into the early 1500's only Jewish and a few Moorish converts
to the Church were accused, tried and executed. These trials more of a
political than religious nature, as the king and queen really needed to see
where people’s loyalties lay in the wake of the defeat of the Muslims and their centuries of rule in Spain. Neither of these inquisitions persecuted or “murdered” Protestants.
SWB:Third, the fact is many,
many more Catholics were persecuted and murdered under tyrants like Calvin,
Elizabeth I, and princes of Luther’s Germany than all the years of the
Inquisition combined. Catholics were
persecuted in Britain and then Ireland (that’s why Ireland is divided today—because
the British monarch tried to force Protestantism on the Catholic population of
Ireland.) Catholics were persecuted and even outlawed in many of the states of
the what would become the United States. One example of the continued prejudice
in the US is a history of my state for use by homeschool families. It claimed
the earliest church established here was a Church of Christ church early in the
20th century. There is no mention of the Catholic church and mission
established in the late 18th century and the FACT that many of the
Indian tribes here were practicing Catholics when Protestant missionaries
deigned to come here. At least these facts are being stated at the state
history museum. Anyway, back to the original
“answer.”
Reformation teachings
that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as
Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this
view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.
SWB: All I can say is that
this is very true, that is that Catholics will not “warm up” to Protestants who
claim to believe this. There is absolutely no evidence that the Beast of
Revelation is the Church—none. No matter how you twist the words of St. John,
his vision of the "beast" does not indicate the Church. Seeing that St. John was one of the Apostles
of Christ and a founder of His Church, now called Catholic (btw, named such by
St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John), why would he aid in the founding of a
Church that was a “beast” in his vision? It makes no logical sense. Besides, it
is blatantly obvious that Jerusalem is the “whore of Babylon”—the city of seven
hills and unfaithful to God. The "beast" is still a mystery.
[2nd para] For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes
from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal
truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and
one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap.
SWB: I would agree, however,
those claiming to be Christians should be able to act with charity towards
other Christians and at least be open to the possibility that we are all
sincerely following Christ the way we feel is right. I honestly do not
understand the close-mindedness of the majority of Protestants in thinking that Catholics are not Christians.
Many Protestants
think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save,…
SWB: The Catholic Church has
never taught a “works-gospel”. The Church teaches what Christ taught. He directed His followers to DO.
"In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." and He said "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me. And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.' (Matt. 25: 40, 45-46)
SWB: Jesus taught that we have to act upon our faith, and if we don't we will be punished. This is a clear teaching that "works" are necessary to our faith and our salvation.
SWB: The Holy Spirit inspired James, an apostle of Jesus, to write that works are necessary for salvation.
How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?
If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, 'I wish
you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,' without giving them these
bare necessities of life, then what good is that?
In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.
But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith.
You believe in the one God -- that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear.
Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?
Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did. (James 2: 14-22)
SWB: I do have to say that I find it amusing that Protestants claim to use Scripture as their final authority, yet they ignore inconvenient passages of Scripture. I posit that many if not most Protestants have decided or learned certain doctrines and find passages they think supports their beliefs, while ignoring passages they can't explain away without twisting what Scripture actually says. Christ said we must do acts of charity or we will suffer eternal punishment; that is a clear command. James, the Apostle, said faith without works is dead, and a dead faith cannot save you. But, Catholics believe exactly what Christ and His Apostle taught, but we're the ones accused of not following Scripture. Strange.
…while Roman
Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism [sic] that requires nothing
more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching.
SWB: As a former Baptist (I
became a Catholic Christian at age 36, so it was not naïve), I can attest that
this is true, at least in my experience. People would go forward at the “altar
call” time and again at church, when is the conversion true? When is it the one?
Our (Baptist) church was very emotional. Most of what I learned in
church was fluff. I went to a Baptist college; it left me wanting something
more substantive. The Catholic Church is always accused of having people
blindly follow doctrines; I found that was much truer in the Protestant
churches I attended than the Catholic Church. The majority of the Southern,
Independent, and Regular Baptist churches, and the Lutheran and Episcipal
churches I attended as an adult told the people that they must believe the pastor’s interpretation of Scripture or they’d be
going to Hell.
Protestants blame
Catholics for worshipping [sic] Mary,..
SWB: I think “blame” is the
wrong word here. Protestants accuse
Catholics of worshiping Mary. I believe many relish the accusation because
they think it is a slam dunk in helping them convince people that Catholics are
not Christians. It simply is not true; Catholics do not worship Mary. No matter how many ways and how often it is
explained this accusation will continue. It is a favorite anti-Catholic lie.
… and Catholics think
Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has
made in this regard.
SWB: I don’t believe that is a
correct characterization. I don’t know any Catholics, at least any who publicly
debate Protestants, who think that Protestants are “too dull” to
understand. In point of fact, most
Catholics try to give Protestants the benefit of the doubt that they simply
have not heard the arguments for the distinctions. Protestants for the most
part simply refuse to see or acknowledge the distinction between the honor we
give to the Mother of our Savior and the worship we give God alone. Mary was after all extremely blessed by
God. She carried God the Son in her womb. She was Christ’s first believer and
follower. She is a model of Christian womanhood and a beautiful soul. It is a
wonder to me, now, that Protestants are so hateful to Christ’s mother. After
all, being disrespectful to anyone’s mother will not endure anyone to another,
especially Christ. Even if Protestants refuse to honor her, they should at the
very least not be unkind about her.
These caricatures are
often difficult to overcome.
SWB: True, and some caricatures
perpetuated in this very article.
[3rd para] Behind the particular disagreements over the role of
faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the
priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the
Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism:
the issue of authority. SWB: Very True. How one answers the authority
question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to
deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really
much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.
SWB: Yes, when Rome speaks, it
is settled. However, the Church neither asks us to be nor
assumes us to be mindless drones. Study of Scripture and Church theology is
encouraged. There are many, many resources available to Catholics or anyone interested
in the Catholic Church if they have any questions. These resources include but
are not limited to the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, EWTN
television and radio, numerous Catholic online outlets such as Catholic
Answers, Catholic Bridge, the Vatican website, and many more.
This is a problem
when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the
Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of
Roman Catholic authority.
SWB: Protestant perception of
Catholic surety as retreat is simply false perception. In point of fact, the
majority of Catholic History is one of reason. The Church was the foremost
supporter of science throughout history (many of the science discoveries were made by monks). The
University system in Europe was built by monks. The earliest private school in
America was founded by a nun. Most Catholics who publicly debate Protestants
have studied theology for years; they have questioned and studied what the
Church teaches through her Christ-given authority. The Church, in fact, encourages
inquiry and study. The Protestant’s false characterization of the
simple mindedness of Catholics is simply that—false. The “safe zone” is the two millennia of study
and reasoning that can be tested and its truth and consistency relied on.
Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve
around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the
"official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."
SWB: I would agree with that
only if the author also agrees that “private interpretation” not only has led to
many diverse Protestant sects who claim to know the “truth” but also makes each
individual (or at least there pastor or leader) their own pope, since they
brook no argument of their “private interpretation”. And, I would posit
that the arguments revolve around individual Protestant interpretations (which
by the way cannot all be true) and the study and reasoned theology of a
Catholic (which have arrived at one truth).
Catholics claim to
successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their
reliance on their tradition.
SWB: Actually, no, Catholics
claim that they can study the actual words of Christ, His Apostles, and the many,
many generations of theologians to approach “legitimate problems.” Two thousand
years of theology and debate carry much more weight than one man's "private interpretation" Two thousand
years of consistent, intelligent, deep thought and debate is pretty compelling
to billions of Catholics.
But this merely
pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and
Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose
their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that
authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants
are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.
SWB: I love how the thousands
of reinterpretations and “truths” are considered reasoned. To admit that, one
is simply willing to reject two millennia of teaching and that seems awfully
unreasoned. Catholics, at least all those I know that debate Protestants,
readily “admit” that they rely upon their own reasoning ability. They
(Catholics) are just more willing to actually study the theology and the
history of the Church. Protestants unnecessarily start from scratch again and
again.
[4th para] Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's
faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal
arguments.
SWB: That is not always
true. In point of fact, I know of many,
many converts to Catholicism. Many of whom were “fiercely loyal” to the faith
they grew up in, but could not in all consciousness stay a Protestant after years
of studying the Catholic Faith. That includes me. I studied the Catholic Faith
for several years before I entered an RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of
Adults) class, where I questioned everything. I did not convert mindlessly or out of
loyalty. I became a Catholic because the Holy Spirit answered all my questions
at RCIA and led me to the Truth.
Christ established one Church, one Body, one Faith. He did not want us to be
divided. His Body was and is to be one.
Obviously, there are
a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and
Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides
agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. Beyond that, we can
agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in agreement.
SWB: If only we could “agree
to disagree.” In my experience as a Catholic, we are much more willing to find
commonalities and work together. Christians should treat each other with
dignity, respect, and charity. I’ve seen time and time again where Catholics
would extend a hand of friendship and cooperation only to be scorned and
rebuffed. However and despite our differences, we need to have a united front
in the face of the growing violent, Muslim threat. We cannot win souls to
Christ with all our infighting. Protestants would do good to at the very least
admit that Catholics are sincere, believing Christians. We would all get along
better.
When it comes to
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to
ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant
judgments…
SWB: Some of which were
included in this article.
– both sides need to be honest in their
assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.
SWB: I agree. I know that the
Church does teach what God revealed, and nothing else.
SWB: For anyone who cares, I did earn a Bachelor's Degree (Summa Cum Laude) in Catholic Theology, which makes me just as qualified to speak on theology as those who anonymously author articles on GotQuestions.org.
Copyright disclosure: Copyright Policy:
While all of the material on the GotQuestions.org website is under
copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure
people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or
link to www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our
permission to copy, print, and distribute our material.
