Answering a Protestant Answer to Why There is Animosity Between Catholics and Protestants

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.

SWB: On a site called “gotquestions.org” I found this:

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: [1^st 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 18^th 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 20^th century. There is no mention of the Catholic church and mission established in the late 18^th 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.

[2^nd 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.

[3^rd 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.

[4^th 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.

[The original article’s] Recommended Resources: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy and Logos Bible Software.

SWB: My recommended resources: Catholic Answers,  Catholic Bridge,

Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Bible, Writings of the early Church Fathers (theologians), Sixteen documents of Vatican II, Writings of St. John Paul II, The Catholic Faith Explained, EWTN's The Teachings of the Catholic Church. The are many more good sources online but this is a good start for anyone interested in inquiry.

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.

 

Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

Today is a Holy Day of Obligation. All practicing Catholics must attend Mass today. The one person we honor above all othesr, except Jesus Christ Our Lord, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. Today is the day that we honor her motherhood of the Divine person.

"What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ." (CCC 487)

To most Catholics, this statement seems pretty clear. Some may have heard this logic statement: If Jesus is God, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the Mother of God. Everything we believe about St. Mary comes directly from what we believe about Our Lord Jesus. Since we believe Jesus Christ to be God Incarnate, it is right to call His mother, Mother of God. Either He is God or He isn't. Today we celebrate the fact that Jesus was "Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man." (Nicene Creed)

Today's readings are: Numbers 6:22-27; Psalm 67:2-3,5,6,8; and Galatians 4:4-7.

Today's Gospel is from Luke 2: 16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this Child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,
reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for His circumcision,

He was named Jesus, the name given Him by the angel

before He was conceived in the womb.

One thing that many of the first "reformers" did agree on with the Catholic Church was honoring Mary. These beliefs were later dropped by most of their followers.

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." --Martin Luther

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." --John Calvin

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary." --Ulrich Zwingli

There is quite a lot of evidence that the early Church called St. Mary the Mother of God and honored her as such. Below is just a small sampling.

"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead."
--Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

"Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness."

--Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

"And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God."

--Athanasius, Orations III, 14 (A.D. 362).

"To the question: 'Is Mary the bearer of Man, or the bearer of God?' we must answer: 'Of Both.'"
--Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Incarnation, 15 (ante A.D. 428).

Today we honor Mary, the Mother of God. I close with one last quote:

"Whoever honors the Lord also honors the holy [vessel]; who instead dishonors the holy vessel also dishonors his Master. Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel"

--Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:21 (A.D. 377).

**Note:  This was published on Cathapol, a Catholic apologetics blog I contribute to from time to time.

Sandy, Was that You?

Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus
Beautiful!

Yesterday, Thursday evening, I was listening to an afternoon call in show on EWTN.  A woman named "Sandy" called in and asked the host, I believe it was a priest, and asked:  "Why does your church teach that Mary was sinless?  Doesn't that make her equal to God?"  The absurdity of the question reminded me of a woman on a Catholic debate forum I participate on.  She'd ask questions just as thoughtless.  Like the Sandy I knew on the forum, the Sandy on EWTN had already made up her mind that that was what the Church taught.  It was clear she had no interest in being confused by facts.

The EWTN host tried to explain to Sandy what the Church teaches about the Blessed Virgin Mary and her sinlessness.  He tried to tell her that Mary's sinlessness was a gift from God so that she, as a spotless vessel, could carry God in her womb.  As an example, the host tried to use Adam and Eve as an example.  "Adam and Eve were created sinless before the Fall.  That did not make them equal to God.  They were creatures."  Sandy insisted that because Mary was born after Adam and Eve, our teaching that Mary was sinless was making Mary equal to God. 

St. Anne carrying the Immaculate Mary

As the host tried to show how the comparison between Adam and Eve's sinlessness before the Fall, and Mary's before the conception of our Savior, Sandy talked over him.  She said, "Well, your church is wrong.  She is not equal to God."  It was quite obvious that her mind was made up and she had no intention of having it changed--by fact or any explanation.

After Sandy hung up, the host asked her to call back, saying, "I'd love to discuss it with you, and I promise I won't hang up on you."  Of course, she didn't call back.

St. Mary's sinlessness is a teaching that has everything to do with our Lord Jesus Christ, very little to do with Mary herself.  St. Mary is, as Sandy and her ilk like to put it, "just" a woman.  However, to deny that she was a special woman is to deny the specialness of the Incarnation.  Can God enter what is unclean?  [Of course not]  Can God know ahead of "time" what a person's reaction/answer/reply to His calling is?  [Of course He can--He is God after all.  He created "time"; time does not rule His actions]  God gave St. Mary the gift of an Immaculate Conception [a clean soul, free of Original Sin at her conception] precisely because she would say "YES" to God's calling her to be the mother of the Incarnate Son [God became Flesh--John chapter one].  She was not sinless by her own power.  The Church has never taught that.  All virtues, all gifts, all favors, in fact, anything done in and through St. Mary were by, for, and point to her Son--Who IS God.  Period.

I still pray that Sandy's mind, which seems to be shut tighter than a sprung bear trap, will be open to the true Gospel and the true Savior, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  Someday, just maybe, she will be open to becoming part of the Body of Christ.