Why do Protestants ask the same questions about Catholics over and over again? And get the same answers over and over again? And then ask them again?

I realize that boards like this one can get new people, but this has been going on for almost 500 years now.

Isn't it about time for both sides to just agree to disagree? No one is going to be convinced one way or the other.

I think both sides have much more in common than in differences.

The reason I asked questions about Catholicism is because I am curious. I became a Christian when I was young and know very little about the Catholic faith or other faiths for that matter. Sometimes in a discussion someone will say something that the catholics believe and I am blown away by it. So I start asking questions. How am I suppose to know we have things in common.. if I don't ask? Hmmmm? I don't see anything wrong with a healthy, respectful discussion anyway.

I agree. I've never once been on this site and changed someone's religious views. Not a Catholic, not an atheist. But I have learned a LOT about other faiths. Just my thoughts...

I believe that there is a fundamental baseline shared by both faith communities.

The Protestant Reformation began "Schisms" (Breaks with the Holy Roman See) to correct various errors in logic and wrongs going on within the of the Catholic Faith (Roman).

Regardless, there are core faith topics that are not common between Catholic and Protestant faiths. Chief among them, in my opinion is Transubstantiation.This is a hard wall. For us Catholics, when the Priest says this prayer during the Consecration of the Mass, "Come Holy Spirit and make for us these gifts of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ...." We as a Catholic Faith Community believe that the Priest acting as our anointed representative has brought God's spirit upon these gift and they are in fact now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Most Protestant sects do not subscribe to this fundamental tenant of our faith. Of course there is the difference between the Catholic Church's position on Divorce, Abortion, Married Priests, Virgin Birth and so on.

There are many Ecumenical moves on to foster the bringing the faith structures back together, but I not sure that will ever happen.

ClassyT,

"Catholic means "Universal."

"In the beginning.. " no pun intended, there was one group called "Christians". From this two "Rites" were established. The "Roman" and "Greek."

Several hundred years later, the Eastern Rite is busy corrupting its very core truths, here comes the Reformation. Now the Catholic Church is trying to regain control of itself {my paraphrase} and some of the issues raised on abuses cause schism (breaks) with the Holy Roman See.

These are most often grouped under the term of the Protestant Reformation.

In my uneducated understanding of Church History it is not so easy to look at the Church (Catholic) and say it is almost identical to the current Protestant sects. There are very fundemental core beliefs that are not shared at the same level as Catholicism. For example, Confession, Marriage in general, the Mass, Baptism, Confirmation.

Also, the Catholic Church had long held that only an Ordained Priest could lead his community in studying the bible. Now a days, in a Catholic Bible Study group, you may not even find a Priest present.

Women as Priests'. A flat out not allowed position for the Catholic Church. Protestants have woman Ministers.

Personal Belief - Why not, who am I to decide who God calls to His/Her service since we are all made by God in His/Her Image.

Do you have a specific question you would like answered? If so, send it alone and I will ferret out the correct Catholic response.

I know of one Catholic web site, Catholicgoldmine.com (I think) that is open to all and was a terrific resource to my wife and I when we were planning RCIA classes.

Hi Athos,
I can only tell you my own experience. My dad was a hard-line Baptist who taught me all Catholics are going to hell because they're Catholics, and that's all I ever learned about them. He told me the Catholic church is the Antichrist, the Great Whore of Revelation, and all the other nasty stuff you've probably heard time and time again.

Then John Paul II became pope. I looked at this man and had a hard time reconciling his concern for the poor, his desire to see the gospel go to all nations, his personal godliness and his intense, devout worship of Jesus with the whole antichrist thing. But how to find out what was right and what was wrong? I started asking questions.

I suspect a lot of folks who ask those same questions are in a similar boat. There's an awful lot of hatred out there, often propagated by popular publications like those that used to come out of Chick Publications (I don't know if they're still around, but they used to be one of the major Catholic-bashers) and similar organizations. Some people will accept it all blindly, and ask those questions about Mary etc. just to be antagonistic. Others are like me, asking what's the truth of the matter and what's prejudicial hype. Unfortunately, just about every generation has to deal with it all over again, because in certain circles the answers get buried out of sight of all but the most intensely searching. And the beat goes on.

Frustrating? You bet it is. But if it brings one person to a better understanding of the things we have in common and helps draw us together in the love the Jesus said would identify us, I think it's worth it.

"In the beginning.." no pun intended, there was one group called "Christians". From this two "Rites" were established. The "Eastern (Rome) and Western (Cyrillic).



I thought Rome was the western and Constantinople was the eastern? Or am I being dyslexic again?

You may very well be correct, regardless, is not the most important issue. I'm looking at the fundemental faith evolution.

First - Christ
Second - Christians
Third - Catholics
Fourth - Catholic Roman & Greek rites
Fifth - Protestants.

Is that clearer? I went back and removed the terms "Eastern" and "Western" and replaced them with Greek and Roman. Thanks for your assistance. Don

You may very well be correct, regardless, is not the most important issue. I'm looking at the fundemental faith evolution.

First - Christ
Second - Christians
Third - Catholics
Fourth - Protestants.

Is that clearer? I went back and removed the terms "Eastern" and "Western" and replaced them with Greek and Roman. Thanks for your assistance. Don

Not trying to challenge you, just a little confused as usual. I would actually put "Eastern" in as fourth, before Protestants, but that's just me.

D,

I did not feel challenged. Corrected but that is for the better and I take no offense at all.I made the change. Given that this is only a global high view and not intended to be anything else, do you have any more suggestions?

Just out of curiosity, what questions are we speaking of here. I don't know of any non-Catholics that have quizzed on the tenants of the Roman Catholic Rites.

D,

I did not feel challenged. Corrected but that is for the better and I take no offense at all.I made the change. Given that this is only a global high view and not intended to be anything else, do you have any more suggestions?

Just out of curiosity, what questions are we speaking of here. I don't know of any non-Catholics that have quizzed on the tenants of the Roman Catholic Rites.

The questions I know of usually revolve around Mary and that sort of thing, but Athos is the one to give a definitive answer since s/he asked the original question.

And no, I don't have any more suggestions. Your timeline looks good to me.

The answer to the original question is:

It is because the Catholic answers do not make sense and are non-biblical, hence the same questions are always asked until a logical answer is given.

That's because Catholic answers incorporate the teachings of the Catholic Church and are inclusive of the Biblical texts.

Why do Protestants ask the same questions about Catholics over and over again? And get the same answers over and over again? And then ask them again?

I realize that boards like this one can get new people, but this has been going on for almost 500 years now.

Isn't it about time for both sides to just agree to disagree? No one is going to be convinced one way or the other.
Funny, I was just talking about this stuff last night with a buddy of mine.

In my buddy's case, I think he forget that Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy (my church) and all the other denominations are just religions, i.e. a structured set of rituals. The fundamental idea behind every single denomination is the same: faith in the Holy Trinity. If you have faith, then you're a Christian. Which set of rules you follow to worship Christ is just gravy.

Denominations disagree with one another over stupid crap. The one that gets to me is to be ordained as a priest in the Catholic church, you must remain celibate throughout your life. In the Orthodox church, you can marry before you are ordained. I guess the reasoning behind it is celibacy is purer and, therefore, makes the celibate person closer to God; sorry, I don't buy it. Also, when making the sign of the crucifix, Catholics go to the left first, Orthodoxy goes to the right.

I realize the question was between Protestants and Catholics, but all separate denominations are the same really.

So, with disagreements a over non-issues like that, they'll never find common ground.

One of the nice things about the diversity of Christian denominations is that there's really something for everybody. Each group has slightly different traditions and practices, so wherever a person is on the preference scale, they can find a church to suit them. I agree that churches tend to split over the stupidest things they can find; I actually saw a Baptist church split over the color of the carpet. All that happens, not because there's confusion in the Church, or because of different interpretations, or even because of satanic interference. It happens because people are pathological idiots. Everybody thinks their way is the best or only way. A lot of folks are going to be shocked to see who they discover in heaven. A favorite joke of mine:

A man dies and goes to heaven. An angel is showing him around and everybody is happy, rejoicing, having a great time and getting to know each other. After a while they come to a huge wall. The man asks, "What's behind there?" The angel lifts him up to take a peek. On the other side of the wall is a bunch of people, walking around with hands in pockets, each face looking as though it's been sucking on a lemon. No talking, no singing, no apparent happiness. The man asks, "Who are they?" The angel replies, "Shh. Those are [insert your pet-peeve denomination here]. They think they're the only ones here."

We all look to the same Lord for salvation. How we work out that salvation is a matter of preference, and the biblical guidelines are amazingly few and flexible. I'd love to see us all quit sniping at each other and quarreling over non-essentials and get on with the business of building the Kingdom.

To understand the vow of Celibacy you need to go seriously back in Roman Catholic Church history.

Remember that the early RCC (Back in the time of the Acts) was pure Christian in it's mores and practices. Move forward in history from there and you become embroiled in all manner of abuses. I contend that these abuses are man made. Power Struggles, Greed, Avarice, the whole gamut.

Okay, within that mish-mash of trash comes the wealth of the Church and the personal wealth of the Priests, Chancellors, Bishops even the Pope.

If any of these "people" are married, who gets the wealth acquired during their lifetimes, the families engender by marriage or the Church.

So, if no one marries, then there is disposition of wealth, what was acquired remains the property of the Church. Enter the vow of "Celibacy", which also by the way stops placing the Priest in a position of having to serve two masters, his spouse and the Church.

When we lived I Lexington, KY there was a Priest named "Dan". He was a Diocesan Priest. He handled his vow of poverty by only taking what he could fit into his car, the rest of his belongings were left behind at the old Parish to be used as the community saw fit.

I know I'm mixing two different vows but the core issue is the willingness to put the call of God first before self.

Celibacy (which I am not in favor of but understand) is again setting one's self apart from the norm.

I once had a lively debate with a Priest when he was discussing Celibacy and why it was important to him as a priest. He went on to say that in the normal course of "Human" lives, men and women are drawn to sex as a matter of nature and that he believed that, that equated to the single lifestyle. Within that vain of thought, he felt free from the weight and struggle for sex.

I then pointed out that if the vow of Celibacy set him apart from the single lifestyle then by definition the Vows of Marriage did the same for a man and wife and therefore the Vows of Chasity taken by Novitiates as they become Nuns had the same strengths as his vow of Celibacy and within that subtext the same level of commitment was held by all "Vowed" peoples.

I'm sorry for prattling on and being disjointed in my thoughts but in all honesty I have not delved this deeply into my "Faith" in years, exactly 5 years.

Don,
I think we also have to acknowledge that there were several prominent people in the early Catholic church who honestly believed that sex was evil. In the time of Jerome there were married couples who converted, learned this teaching, and decided to stop having sex and lived the rest of their lives in a brother-sister relationship. Augustine, to name one bigwig, maintained that celibacy was somehow more godly than marriage, even though marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Augustine, as we know, was heavily influenced by his own profligate past, and that needs to be taken into account when evaluating what he had to say on the subject.

While I understand what you're saying about the money situation etc. it seems to me that there are better ways of dealing with such a situation, especially now, so my current question is: why won't Rome bend on this and allow clergy to marry now? I know John Paul II had the chance to reform this outdated and, frankly, counterproductive policy, and disappointed a lot of people when he refused to. Why do you think he did that? And why shouldn't Benedict do it now?

The celibacy vow is indeed an interesting issue - and perhaps one that is open to change. Isn't it interesting that in "inviting" disaffected Anglican/Episcopal priests to join the RCC the Pope is waving the requirement that these new priests be unmarried and celibate? So soon you could have parishes in the RCC run by married priests. Interesting to think what effect that might have down the road on this issue.

So soon you could have parishes in the RCC run by married priests.

There already are such parishes.

The celibacy vow is indeed an interesting issue - and perhaps one that is open to change. Isn't it interesting that in "inviting" disaffected Anglican/Episcopal priests to join the RCC the Pope is waving the requirement that these new priests be unmarried and celibate? So soon you could have parishes in the RCC run by married priests. Interesting to think what effect that might have down the road on this issue.

Nothing new about waiving celibacy for Anglican/Episcopal priests when they convert to Catholicism.

Nothing new about waiving celibacy for Anglican/Episcopal priests when they convert to Catholicism.

Yes, on a case-by-case basis - my understanding is that it's pretty rare. Now there could be a whole "flock" of married priests coming in all at once.

The wavier, at least as I understand it, is strictly for priests that are already married.

I do not believe that an Anglican Priest can convert to Catholicism and accept Ordination, which includes the vow of Celibacy, and then marry.

As to whether I think married priests is a good option, I have to confess that on paper it sounds good but in practice I do not think it would work well.

Yes, on a case-by-case basis - my understanding is that it's pretty rare. Now there could be a whole "flock" of married priests coming in all at once.

Of course on a case-by-case basis - what other case could there be?

What I mean is that it iseeems to be moving from a policy that occasionally allowed exceptions under certain circumstance to one where the exception is codified.

As to whether or not I think married priests is a good option, I have to confess that on paper it sounds good but in practice I do not think it would work well.

Why?

This is my opinion, certainly not Canon Law or a Theological position.

I know the demands placed on a marital relationship (45 yrs. Exper.). Adding to that the demands on a Parrish Priest I honestly believe that it would be more than most marriages could tolerate.

Just the rigors of the day to day demands on a Parrish Priest are enough to strangle (as in hold fast) any one person.

As far as the "Ordered" Priests, such as Jesuits, Dominicans and Benedictines (Mainly teaching orders), time is never their own.

Add to that Divorce, some marriages will fail that's just inescapable. But the RCC does not recognize Divorce as a remedy.

Of course, there is Annulment but that really bears no relationship to Divorce. Divorce dissolves a relationship.

Annulment says there was something so wrong at the time of the exchange of vows as to render the Sacrament of Marriage invalid.

Personally, I would rather see women Ordained then married Priests.

Anyway, you did ask me why.

This is my personal opinion, certainly not Canon Law or a Theological position.

I know the demands placed on a marital relationship (45 yrs. exper.). Adding to that the demands on a Parrish Priest I honestly believe that it would be more than most marriages could tolerate.

Just the rigors of the day to day demands on a Parrish Priest are enough to strangle (as in hold fast) any one person.

As far as the "Ordered" Priests, such as Jesuits, Dominicans and Benedictines (Mainly teaching orders), time is never their own.

Add to that Divorce, some marriages will fail that's just inescapable. But the RCC does not recognize Divorce as a remedy.

Of course, there is Annulment but that really bears no relationship to Divorce. Divorce dissolves a relationship.

Annulment says there was something so wrong at the time of the exchange of vows as to render the Sacrament of Marriage invalid.

Personally, I would rather see women Ordained then married Priests.

Anyway, you did ask me why.

Indeed I did, and I thank you for the thoughtful answer. I understand what you're saying; at the same time, most Protestant ministers do all those things and manage to stay married all the time. My own view, unsolicited, free and well worth it, is that it just depends on the individual. As Paul said, some can handle it, some can't, but each should be convinced in his own mind.

And I do support ordaining women. But that's another issue :eek:

And I only have 30 years' experience dealing with marital life myself...

I have very little information on the organization and structure of the various Protestant Faiths.

It seems to me that there are not as rigidly bound as the RCC. Protestants are more likely to use lay ministers for some tasks, however, there are a multitude of tasks that cannot be assigned to anyone but a Priest.

I will give you that the RCC is leaning towards a more active laity and a more involved laity, but I don't ever see that as a relief for the burden put on Priests.

Just curious, but have you ever been in a situation where you were on 24 hour call and expected to carry a full workday load as well.

I spent 13 years as a Sr. Customer Engineer within IBM's Office Product division. 10 of those years had me on 24 hour call for photo copiers and communication systems. It wears a body down. You really hate the sound of the phone in the night.

Make plans for a peaceful weekend at the beach and end up in Union Camp, VA. 3 hr. drive one way from VA. Beach, VA and spend 9 hours on the job and then return home to the not so happy lady of your life.

You know, in retrospect, some of it was fun.

I remember one trip sent me to San Francisco to work on a printer datastream failure. The fellow I was supposed to work with had refused to work over the weekend but I was already in the air when that was learned. So I get to San Francisco (Friday night) and I'm told, no work to Tuesday.

Fortunately, our local airport was running companion fare and I was able to purchase a round trip first class seat for my Lady for the whopping amount of $6.00. IBM already had to purchase my ticket as first class because that was the only fare available at such late date.

So there we are in San Francisco, 1 block away from Fisherman's Wharf and being told we were on our own until Tuesday. I just had to keep up with my e-mail traffic through the weekend.

Isn't God great!

I have very little information on the organization and structure of the various Protestant Faiths.

It seems to me that there are not as rigidly bound as the RCC. Protestants are more likely to use lay ministers for some tasks, however, there are a multitude of tasks that cannot be assigned to anyone but a Priest.

Not really. Some have tried, but few are successful. If you're ordained, you've signed on to do just about everything from leading services to trimming the hedges. Some denominations may be using more lay ministers, but the vast majority of so-called "free" (which means "non-liturgical") churches put everything on the pastor, and yes, he's expected to be on call 24/7. I know of at least two whose churches literally worked them to death.

It can be done; however, being a minister's wife is probably as much a life calling as being a minister, and requires just about as much sacrifice.

When we get to heaven.. there will be all denominations there... The Blood of Jesus Christ has to be accepted and we have to come through the blood of the Saviour in order to be saved. In heaven it is peace and joy, no more denominations. Won't it be wonderful... Blessings

What I mean is that it iseeems to be moving from a policy that occasionally allowed exceptions under certain circumstance to one where the exception is codified.

This is not something that could ever be "codified" - at least not to any significant degree. Married Anglican priests, if and when they arrive (I suspect your "flock" all arriving at once is an overstatement), will go through the same process they always have.