DeoOmnisGloria.com

Aside from Mel Gibson's 'Passion', I think Protestants generally do a better job with the multimedia stuff. Most good modern Christian music is Protestant (DC Talk, Steven Curtis Chapman, Switchfoot, Third Day, etc..NOT Relient-K...) Then there's Veggie Tales...

I walk into a Catholic store and I can feel the immense and sanctified history of Catholicism. I walk into a Protestant store and I can see things directly relevant to our culture.

I was just recently going through a Protestant phase myself. I've been having my head in Catholic only stuff for awhile, and it was actually refreshing to go through the Protestant book store catalogue that I get sent every few months.

Oh GREAT. I think I just lost at least three bets.

Jay

I'm not surprised to see Catholics praising protestants...I am surprised when amongst the thousands of denominations, I hear any positive sentiment in regards to the Catholic church.

In Love

when we were one

At the protestants services I've attended there's alot more gusto in the singing than in the average Catholic parish. Mind you, the hymns (?) weren't exactly chock full of theological goodness :)

Jay,
I think that is an appropriate list for the most part. I would add to the list--marketing--and I mean that in a good way. I live in Northern Virginia, right outside of Washington DC, and when it comes to fighting to fill seats the protestant churches really go all out to promote their services. However, let me qualify that with a comment from my parish priest when he was told that he should promote and do things like the nearby "mega-church" to increase numbers--especially among the young. He wisely and cleverly told them that "blank" Bible church may be the newest and hottest show in town...but we are the longest running:)
Peace,
Matthew

It is funny you mention evangelization. I was listening to Relevant radio yesterday when a Protestant man called and said he thought with Relevant Radio and EWTN Catholics do a better job. He also said he could name several Catholic theologians but no protestant ones. I think that guy's on his way to conversion! Praise be to God and all the saints in heaven!

But I agree with you.

I'd like to add a few things to the list of things Protestants do right. Preaching integrity, Tithing, quality of converts, emphasizing salvation by grace.

Protestants are pretty good about preaching their core moral teachings. Saving sex for marriage, keeping marriage permanent and faithful do receiving, temperance with alcohol "pulpit time". While we may have issue with their teachings on contraception and transubstantiation, their remains an integrity between what the pastors teach and the churches officially believe. More so than in the Catholic Church where it is almost unheard of to hear of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Transubstantiation, or Contraception in a sermon despite widespread doubt about these issues which Catholics must adhere on pain of mortal sin.

Tithing. I first heard about tithing 10% of gross income after I left the Roman Catholic Church to become a protestant. I know darn well that no congregation tithed as a group, but it was talked about often even though it turned many people off, and everyone knew it was an expectation. Since returning to the Roman Catholic Church I have heard about tithing exactly twice and never in a sermon.

Quality of converts. If there were a "head of the Protestant Church" I would write a letter offering a sincere thanks and apology for the Catholic-Protestant conversion situation. Why? The Protestants have sent us Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, and hundreds of other top-notch believers who have enriched the faith life of countless Catholics. We have sent the Protestants bitter and ignorant ex-nuns, ex-priests, ex-husbands, ex-wives who not only reject the authority of the Pope and Magisterium but also the authority of the Sacred Scriptures themselves. The conversions between Protestant and Catholic communities have left the Protestants doubly impoverished and the Catholics doubly blessed. It's almost embarrassing how the Protestant Churches churn out devout Catholics and the Catholic Churches churn out lukewarm Protestants.

Salvation by grace. The "average" Protestant learns early and often that heaven and saving grace cannot be "earned" by anyone except Jesus. They know that for everyone else, God owes noone (not even the Blessed Mother) any of the graces necessary to enter eternal life. They know that everyone in heaven will be there for one reason only: they accepted God's free gift of grace. This has been the official teaching of the Catholic and Protestant communities. Officially, Catholics attend Mass to receive the grace that God promised to give us not to cash in on a debt that God owes us. And yet time and time again, I meet Catholics who believe that they earn their way into heaven by being good enough to deserve it. I know the wiser Catholics get this teaching right but it seems about as rare as the belief that we ought to obey the moral principles outlined in Humanae Vitae.

In fact, Steve Wood in his article on how for twenty years he led Catholics out of the Church he mentions that he and other Protestants would draw away Catholics by pointing to Ephesians 2:8-9 which says we are saved by grace and then accuse the Catholic Church of denying salvation by grace. In twenty years as a Protestant Minister, he encountered not a single Catholic who corrected him on this mistaken notion that the Catholic Church denies salvation by grace. So he honestly believed along with every Catholic he had met the Catholic Church taught salvation by works and not by grace (and so he had good reason to believe Catholics were going to hell).

Speaking of Steve Wood, I had the opportunity to attend a "Saint Joseph's Covenant Keepers" workshop a few weeks ago. I highly recommend this organization which Mr Wood founded. One of the speakers (cradle Catholic, lapsed, and converted) offered a very interesting perspective on how we should regard Protestants considering the official Catholic Church teaching that "the fullness of Christ's Church subsists within the Roman Catholic Church".

Imagine we Catholics are driving a brand new ferrari. When we see Protestants living a life of virtue, dedication, holiness, and courage to speak and stand for the values of the Kingdom even though they miss the Sacraments and Infallible Magisterial Teachings, then it means we are being beat by someone driving a beat up used Pinto. You gotta admire the driver and wonder what amazing things they could do if they drove a real car.

Broken record,

You make some fine points. I would suggest that it is not surprising that rabble would leave God's Church and truth believers would find their way here.

Also, your metaphor on our Ferrarri's and their Pintos -Offer them a free ride!

Interesting that so many of us admire the recent evangelical rush. Kinda like they converted 1 billion people and arguably the greatest empire in history. Indeed the megachurch movement has been locally successful and may even go global but the most successful of all evangelicals has been the Catholic Church by far. My evangelical friends would say that if they had the helm, they think it would have been 2 billion converts by now...but that is the point...God chose us for the helm and refutes any of their claims to Matt 16.

Re: tithing, I think we have let the strawman stick. Tithing was soooo associated with indulgences (although it really has nothing to do with it) evangelical churches will say Malachi 3 give to the church and get grace and limitless blessing from God...the Catholics do that and the evangelicals point and say hey they are sooo corrupt look indulgences!

Personally I don't care... I highly recommend indulgences and also donations to all reading...blessings have been as promised.

In Love

when we were one

WWWO,

I was under the impression that indulgences and tithing were two different things. Namely, that indulgences did not necessarily involve almsgiving and that they were associated with removing the temporal punishment for sin. Tithing, as far as I know, does not necessarily have any connection with sin or forgiveness and by definition involves giving of material wealth.

Under those definitions, I have heard of indulgences often mentioned but tithing mentioned exactly twice in a Roman Catholic setting. As far as I know the practice of tithing is a good and commendable one for any Christian but for some reason the Catholic Church never mentions it in a homily (kind of like contraception or salvation by grace).

I guess the score on these three issues is:
1. Catholic Church official Magisterial teachings: 3/3
2. Good Catholic literature: 3/3
3. Protestant sermons: 2/3
4. Catholic homilies at Mass: 0/3

WWWO,
Your comment:

"I'm not surprised to see Catholics praising protestants...I am surprised when amongst the thousands of denominations, I hear any positive sentiment in regards to the Catholic church."

I agree with you and would like to see more of that as well. In general though, from what I've seen and heard, the only praise we get [from non-Catholics] is primarily in regard to our social justice stance and charitable efforts. The negative FAR outweighs the positive and it generally stems from ignorance or a pre-conceived prejudice. This cannot be explained away and excused from my point of view since what the Church teaches can easily be found in the Catechism or in other similar writings. If protestants REALLY want to understand their Catholic brethren then it falls on them to seek it out. Obviously this doesn't happen too often and even when it does it seems that they are all too willing to chalk it up to "another" Catholic "tradition" that undermines the place of Scripture. *sigh* :(

This is why we are here and why Joe, Jay, and Dave created this site. To "hold the candle of truth out to the world." So if our protestant brothers and sisters cannot or will not acknowledge us positively, or not at all, we can always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15) when need be.
In Christ,
Matthew

BR

Indeed they are different...I must be unclear in my paragraph as usual. But the protestants I know, they remember and quite frequently like to bring up the reformation and money in relation to indulgences... (A pastor friend of mine the other day frowned saying *I heard the Vatican will release more indulgences this year*) I then have to explain to them that we still do not trust the friends of Luther that printed the flyers that claim forgiveness for money because indulgences have never ever been about forgiveness of sin just temporal punishment...then I get a blank stare. Soooo anytime a Catholic (me) brings up monetary donation (tithe) my prot friends think I'm trying to buy forgiveness when I'm just making a donation (for unfortunately the church will not accept $ as indulgence anymore due to the Protestant schism)...thanks again Luther, yes 500 yrs later they are still misled.

My point is many feel the CC is money grubbing...and probably because of past corruption...so today post Vat 2 we try not to offend the protesting christians so we don't bring up tithing that much.

The problem I have with tithing and reformed prots is that they love to walk around yelling *once saved always saved* and eph 2:8 trying to tell us no laws hold... then their pastor says except a 10% tithe that holds and o yea no dancing or drinking those commandments hold and sometimes no driving automobiles that law is still intact there in scripture Paul didn't mean to erase those.

Matthew

I still haven't seen that praise...lemme do a Kaff to you...citation please :P

In Love

when we were one

My theory on tithing, based on no specific historical research, but on my general knowledge . . .

I believe that Protestant tithing is an American invention, born of necessity. In Europe (and other historically Catholic places like Mexico), churches are supported by tax dollars. This arrangement continued after the shift away from Catholicism (like Anglicanism in England). In the US, the government was forbidden to promote churches, so churches had to invent their own tax.

Being traditional, Catholics have only recently caught on to the tithing thing. But, I imagine that the "envelope system" is more prominant here than in Europe.

WWWO,
Hey...there is only one Kaff allowed on this site...and your ripping off his material:)

Anyway, I mis-spoke. I meant to convey is that in my circles of talking to non-Catholics those [social justice and charity] are the primary things were are lauded for. I have NEVER heard any non-Catholic praise us for anything...and it is sad on many levels. Primarily from the standpoint that it exposes how deep the divide is in understanding what the Catholic Church is about. However WWWO, if I ever do come across anything worth citing I will definitely post it.
Peace,
Matthew

Singing! We have chant but does any parish use it? I dont know of any in Colorado. I love a big raucous choir clapping their hands.

I know it doesnt exactly fit in at the eucharistic sacrifice but I do love that gospel music!

To Jay and all other Roman Catholic bloggers:
I am glad and refreshed to see this kind of topic coming out of this website. For much of my time spent reading and responding on this website this is the spirit that I have been trying to promote: To emphasize the similarities between "protestants" and Roman catholics. Although, it is important to discuss and understand our differences (with love) I feel sometimes these differences are emphasized more often and with contempt and anger (not just on this website but elsewhere). Just searching through this site it is obvious to see that for every one of these types of topics there are 10 others that focus on the differences between the two groups.
Now, I must tell you that although we often disagree on things, I admire and stand with the Roman catholic church on their views on abortion, homosexuality, love, caring for the poor, sick, and elderly, discipline, marriage, divorce (sort of), contraception, and many others. I admire the way the Roman catholic church promotes Christ like virtues and righteous living. In many ways the Roman catholic church far exceeds (hands down)many "protestants" denominations in this regard as a whole. However, the mistake is often made in lumping all "protestant" denominations together. Although there are many "protestant" denominations that accept abortion and homosexuality, I say, without doubt or hesitation, that these denominations may be "protestant" but they are neither Christian, biblically sound , or of God. Sometimes I feel that many Roman catholics lump all the "protestant" believers under the same umbrella which is unfair and frankly quite insulting (to me personally).
Now, I must admit that I have been ignorant of some of the official Roman catholic teachings and doctrines and I have learned much about Catholicism during my time on this website and in my individual research. For example, I had always been under the impression that the Roman catholic church taught salvation through works (i.e.- earning one's way into heaven). I now know that this is not necessarily true and that you believe in salvation through Grace alone, in Christ alone. However, I believe that the Roman catholic church has done a diservice to their members and others outside the church in this regard. Allow me to explain. I grew up most of my life a Roman catholic. During all my years, through all the Sunday schools, attending Catholic school, cathechisms and Masses I grew up believing that I had to earn my way into heaven because this is what was emphasized to me. At one point, as I began to read and learn more about the Bible and began to see that this belief did not line up with scripture I began to question myself first. Maybe I misundertood? Maybe I heard wrong? However, the more I began searching the more I realized that it was not only what the clergy was emphasizing but that most of the menbers of the Roman catholic church believed this as well. Many, many Roman catholics don't know the teachings of their own religion. I think that in an effort to distance themselves from "protestant" theology the Roman catholic church placed an emphasis on works rather than faith thus creating this confusion among its members. Maybe I am mistaken but this is how I see it from my limited perspective.
However, I want to end by emphasizing that although we may have our differences I will stand together with you as a believer in Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, and defend the truth of the gospels to the world until the death.

May God bless US always,
Ernie

Ernie

It is indeed sad to see poor catechesis. On one hand you have Protestants who believe the strawman *CC teaches salvation by ones own merit* and Catholics who don't flippin care what the prots want to believe about them...and don't explain to them that it indeed was the Catholics (and no one else) that put to rest the heresy of Pelagianism (salvation by works alone) waaay back in the 400s (Council of Ephesus).

You may find this more educational Ernie. This link is the Catholic/Lutheran dialog (official reps sent by both sides trying to reunite!!! yea!!!)...here from the Lutheran site...so no tampering from wwwo :) See paragraph 19

19. We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God's judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God's grace. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:

http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/ecumenicaldialogue/romancatholic/jddj/declaration.html

The whole thing brings tears to my eyes...and a few in both camps but actually for the opposite reason (they don't want a Jn 17:20-22).

In Love

when we were one

Ernie

Now I write this before I have seen any response from anyone to my above post. Like many of my posts...some find unclear so I am obliged to preclarify...

Before I get flamed by anyone saying I have ditched the bible :) Jas 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." I would argue that indeed the Catholic faith as usual is the only *and/both* faith of the 30001 so called Christian denominations. This ecumenical document has me wondering though if the Lutherans aren't pretty close though.

You see there are 2 heresies and a small path between called truth. Pelagians believe it is by WORKS ALONE we are saved...scripture and tradition do not say this therefore heresy (Council of Ephesus). Sola Fide has it by FAITH ALONE are we saved as we can see from Jas 2:24 the exact opposite is true and from Catholic tradition we see that this was never an accepted concept back to the Christ therefore heresy (Council of Trent).

So how can these ideas co exist? Everyone wants an either/or in their world...simply put...faith is a function of grace Eph 2:8 and works are a function of faith Jas 2 14:17.

Here in a debate on his site,

http://www.geocities.com/rcatholic/sippo/sippo.html

Dr. Art Sippo explains better than I..."The Catholic Church does not teach that we bring about our own righteousness. Whatever righteousness we have comes to us from God through Christ. It is because his grace has transformed us that we are able to please him with what we do. But our good works do not earn us justification. They are meritoriuos before God because GOD HIMSELF HAS WROUGHT THOSE WORKS THROUGH US. Technically they are His mighty deeds done by Christ through the members of his mystical Body. As St. Paul says:

Rom 15: 17 In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to boast of my work for God. 18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ..."

In Love

when we were one

Ernie,
Thank you for your gracious commentary and taking the time to REALLY learn what the Catholic Church really believes and teaches (i.e., grace vs. works, etc). However, let me ask you to consider with all sincerity that if you agree that the Church is right on this, which is MAJOR issue, and agree with the Church on many other related issues then would you take into consideration that the Church just might be right on any remaining issues that stand between your re-joining the Church? I hope that you consider this and my prayer for you is that the Holy Spirit will continue to lead you in your search for the truth--that is all. May God bless you and keep you always in His grace.
Peace,
Matthew

WWWO,

Jay has also posted a snippet from one of Peter Kreeft's books which suggests that the word "faith" in the New Testament appears to have two possible meanings depending on the context. The first meaning is "intellectual assent to a creed" and the second is more along the lines of something which reaches deep into the heart to produce a spirit of trust and obedience. (Jay's post)

Kreeft goes so far as to suggest that a misunderstanding occurred at the Reformation and that Catholics condemned "faith alone" because they understood faith in the first sense and that Protestants affirmed "faith alone" because they understood faith in the second sense. He even dares to say that the faith-works issue is not a dividing point between Catholics and Protestants (though there still remain many important dividing points).

That being said, I really do wish Catholic catechesis was stronger on this point. It strikes me that a Catholic who mistakenly believed that the Roman Catholic Church taught salvation by works (and there are plenty) could in good conscience leave the Roman Catholic Church for this reason alone.

I have no objection to people making an informed decision to leave the Roman Catholic Church as I respect other people's choices. But for someone to leave the Roman Catholic Church in search of teaching that was always there but never noticed constitutes an unnecessary tragedy.

Thanks to everyone for your comments and information. However, let me ask you guys why is this misunderstanding (salvation through works) so prevelant among Roman catholics? I can understand how "protestants" may be misinformed regarding the "official" teachings of the Roman catholic church but how come so many Roman catholics also think this is so? Would you not agree that the teaching of salvation through works goes 100% directly against Holy Scripture? I mean this is such a major issue (as Matthew put it) for many outside the Roman catholic church that I would expect the vatican to be doing everything within their power to correct this misunderstanding. Maybe they are but, if so, then why is this concept still so prevelant among the lay persons?

Matthew:
Thank you for your prayers and your kind words. I would agree that this was/is a major stumbling block for me and for others but there are other issues as well. I beleive the Roman catholic church is right on many issues and wrong on others. The question begs that does one particular religion/denomination have 100% of the truth? I would say no. I don't believe that one particular religion or denomination is completely without error on ALL matters of faith. Some are more in line with the truth than others but 100%? I don't see how that's possible. This is why everything has to be filtered through the Word of God.

May God bless us always,
Ernie

Ernie,

The Vatican has always and still does teach salvation by grace. Take a look at Article 1996 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

While the Magisterium/Vatican has the authority to preserve true teaching and to demand obedience to these teachings, it does not actually have the "earthly power" to control what really goes on in the parishes and the dioceses. It cannot force priests to mention particular topics or teachings. It has almost no disciplinary jurisdiction over the bishops. All the Vatican can really do is speak and write. This they have done faithfully.

I remained ignorant of these foundational teachings for the first 18 years of my life. Perhaps others were partly to blame, but if I could not be bothered to learn what the Roman Catholic Church teaches then ultimately I am the one to blame. Not my priest, my bishop, my Pope, the catechists, the councils, the Vatican, or the Magisterium.

The Church has made no attempt to hide its teachings, made every attempt to proclaim its teachings. We need an interior change of heart before the inspiring words of our Church, the Popes, the Priests, and even the Scriptures can fix the problems of ignorance and apathy.

I still remain impressed at how well the Protestant communities promote many authentic Christian teachings (though I believe that the Roman Catholic Church contains all the authentic teaching even though some or even many members remain woefully ignorant of most of the teachings).

Though when you ask why a misunderstanding can be so prevalent among laypersons, I can only say that educating the laity is not as easy as it sounds. One almost needs to educate the rest of the laity before educating any member of the laity.

Ernie,
I believe that Broken Record answered your question very well and is pretty much what I would have said. The only thing I would add is that I also believe that 100% truth is taught in the Catholic Church and it IS possible because Christ deems it to be so (1 Timothy 3:16; Matt 16:18). However, I ask you the following with all sincerity and without malice...why is the misunderstanding of salvation by faith ALONE so prevelant among our non-Catholic brethren?
Peace,
Matthew

Matthew,

I suspect that many Protestants uses the words "faith" and "grace" in a sense different than Catholics. They understand "faith" to be more than an intellectual assent to a Creed (the Catholic definition) and to include a deep conviction of heart worked by God. Depending on the understanding of the word "faith", then the idea of Salvation by faith can either be authentic teaching or heresy.

Similarly with grace. For a Protestant it means only "God's unmerited favor". For a Catholic it also includes the power and ability to do good works and live sinlessly. Turning this around, a Catholic who commits mortal sin has, by definition, rejected God's grace. For a Protestant, serious sin can co-exist with a state of grace (using their definition of Grace).

This then leads to the "once saved, always saved" debate. I'm beginning to think that the debate cannot even start until we first come to a common understanding of what grace is.

Broken Record and Matthew:
Thanks for your response. Although I agree with you that, ultimately, it is up to the individual to seek out the truth and the things of God, there is some blame that needs to be put on those in position of authority. Now, I am not looking to place blame on anyone (other than the devil himself) for the lies perpretated throughout the ages and the confusion people have regarding the things of God, however, did not James state that the "teachers" of the church had a greater responsibility when preaching the gospels? In James 3:1 he says that not everyone should be a teacher in the church because "we who teach will be judged by God with greater strictness". The Bible also states in Romans 10:14-15, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!". So, although I agree that ultimately it is up to the individual because no one is without excuse, are not those in position of authority in the church responsibile for the misconceptions among its memebers if it is so widley prevelant? I mean if the "official" teaching of the RCC is salvation by grace and a large part of the body of believers believe salvation by works there is something wrong in how those in authority are getting the message across, am I wrong? One thing is what the vatican says should be taught and the other thing is what is actually being taught. Sometimes they are not the same. I don't see how it is possible for the vatican not to know that these inconsitencies take place. And if they do know about it but don't correct it they are at fault as well.

Regarding why the misconception of faith alone is so prevelant among non-catholics it may be similar to what I mentioned before regarding the RCC. Now, I don't pretend to be an expert, and I am only giving my opinion here, but maybe protestants are so eager to separate themselves from Roman catholics that they go to the other extreme. The RCC was so eager to disassociate themselves from the protestant movement that they began to teach salvation by works (even though it was not the "official" teaching of the RCC) and protestants wanted to distance themselves for the RCC and its teachings that it began to promote salvation through faith alone. However, part of the reason for the protestant movement was to counter the teachings of salvation through works (indulgences) so maybe this teaching was already starting to take hold in the RCC. Matthew, I don't take what you say with any malice and I believe I now what your getting at with your question. Are you refering to Martin Luther putting the word ALONE in the Bible when speaking of faih? That this is what has caused the misconception among non-catholics? Maybe so. However, I have not made that judgement yet reagarding the claim that Martin Luther added ALONE because I have yet to research it. But then again, I don't follow Martin Luther I follow Jesus the Christ. And if you look at scripture in its totality you find that Jesus and His disciples said salvation by grace alone through Christ alone. No works, so that no one can boast, and no faith without works, or else it is dead.

May God bless us always,
Ernie

Ernie

Gotcha listening to deceivers, theives and robbers :) See BR and Matthew...it wasn't too long ago I pointed out how my prot friends understand indulgences now Ernest is our 1st example of a virtual prot friend being dragged around by evil lies.

Ernie...here is what an indulgence is... if you hear different they are liars or themselves mislead... listen to them not.

Now you may not agree but you deserve to know the truth... for these run back, back to the beginning...yes the 1st century. They are on the walls of the catacombs when you goto your European Vacation. Yet while Peter and Paul are alive at this time, they do not forbid these common practices for those in purgatory...why??? It was accepted by the Jews/Christians of the time.

An indulgence does NOT forgive sin! Article 1441 CCC notes "Only God forgives sin" An indulgence expatiates (amends) temporal punishment.

The Bible speaks of 2 forms of punishment: 1)eternal Daniel 12:2. and 2) temporal Gen. 3:16.

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

For a pretty decent explanation see this "Primer" that I copied from... too busy ...but not that busy :)

http://www.catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp

In Love

when we were one

Ernie, the Vatican is well aware of bishops failing to proclaim the truth of the gospel. Bishops themselves have come publicly come forward to advocate the use of contraceptives, to deny salvation through Christ alone.

It was well known in the 1990's that a majority of cardinals who would form the conclave opposed fundamental and essential teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (viewers of EWTN know well of Mother Angelica's opposition to the bishops who rejected the authority of the Magisterium). Heretic or treacherous bishops is nothing new to the Church. Judas was the first. In the early Church, the Arian heresy held sway over more than half the bishops.

Thankfully, Pope John Paul II lived long enough so that these rogue cardinals were forced into retirement and were unable to vote in the Conclave that presented Benedict XVI.

Ernie you are also right to say that a greater strictness applies to teachers and those in authority. I certainly would not want to be a bishop trying to explain why I did not warn my flock about the physical, emotional, and moral dangers of contraception.

When it comes to the Magisterium and our Popes, however, I see no evidence of any wrongdoing. When it comes to teaching, they have taught faithfully. What you may not be aware of is how little power the Popes have over the other bishops. We like to think of the Pope as a CEO with a bunch of senior Vice Presidents called cardinals and a bunch of junior Vice Presidents called bishops.

This is not the case, there the Bishop is an "almost" autonomous unit with very little accountability and much freedom. The Pope can legally intervene only in very rare circumstances. The rogue bishops are also well aware of the rules and go about as far as they can to flout the spirit of the law without violating the letter of the Law (kind of like how the Chief Priests managed to kill Jesus without becoming ritually unclean for the Sabbath or contaminating their treasury with blood money).

One example would be Mother Angelica's battle with a high ranking cardinal (you can look up his name yourself by researching Mother Angelica). The cardinal issued a document on the Eucharist which technically did not deny the doctrine of the real presence and did affirm the doctrine in a footnote buried somewhere deep. Technically, it was ok but in truth it was highly misleading and deficient.

Mother Angelica, being faithful to the teachings of the Church, objected to the document. While truth was on Mother's side, the Cardinal was an expert in Canon Law while Mother was not. The Cardinal (who like to preach about women needing to be leaders in the Church) brought the weight of ecclesial Law to bear against Mother Angelica. The Vatican could do very little for Mother other than pray for her and admire her courage.

While the Magisterium has supreme and infallible teaching authority over the Roman Catholic Church because it can infallibly interpret the Sacred Scriptures, it does not have (nor should it) supreme and infallible disciplinary authority.

The book of Galatians contains an incident where Paul rightly opposed Peter (the Pope's) pastoral conduct because Peter's conduct (not eating with the Gentiles) conflicted with Peter's infallible teaching on the status of Gentiles as equal to the Jews before God.

Despite the sad state of catechesis (and this frustrates me as much as it does you because I have small children in the Church), the Magisterium has done what it can and should. Now it is time for me to do my part and stop blaming others.

BR

I'm not sure I agree that the pope is as limited in influence over the flock. Like in 1 Corinthians, the Pope can excommuicate and that which he binds Matt 16 is bound on earth and in heaven. That is pretty intimidating.

In Love

when we were one

Ernie,
You make some good observations of why those in the Catholic and Protestant camps have made efforts to disassociate with one another on points of doctrine.
However, let us be clear here. These are not two sides of the same coin. On the one hand we have the Protestant camp who teaches that we are saved by by grace through faith alone and works are seen as "adding to" Christ's work. However, in Catholic teaching it is God's grace, responding with faith, and working in love just as in Galatians 5:6(below is from the Catechism):

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the FREE AND UNDESERVED HELP that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON GOD’S GRATUITOUS INITIATIVE, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.

1999 The grace of Christ is the GRATUITOUS GIFT that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:
Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and SUSTAIN OUR COLLABORATION IN JUSTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH, AND IN SANCTIFICATION THROUGH CHARITY. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"

Indeed we also work, but WE ARE ONLY COLLABORATING WITH GOD WHO WORKS, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: FOR WITHOUT HIM WE CAN DO NOTHING.

2003 Grace is first and foremost THE GIFT OF THE SPIRIT who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the GIFTS THAT THE SPIRIT GRANTS US TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS WORK, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church.

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, GRACE ESCAPES OUR EXPERIENCE AND CANNOT BE KNOWN EXCEPT BY FAITH. WE CANNOT THEREFORE RELY ON OUR FEELINGS OR OUR WORKS TO CONCLUDE THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED AND SAVED. However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits" - reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

So Ernie, as you can see the Church "officially" teaches that 1) grace is unmerited, 2)faith is our response to God's grace, 3)charity (or works) is our cooperation with God's grace and his works in and through us. Works of God cannot be against God, and without our cooperation with him we in effect reject God's grace which ultimately kills the soul. So good works, as it says in Ephesians 2:10, were prepared for us to walk in them and also in John 14:12 Jesus specifically tells us that, "whoever believes in me WILL DO the WORKS THAT I DO, and do greater ones than these because I am going to the Father." Essentially Jesus tells us that our works, through Him, are an indicator of one who is his follower. Again, these are NOT, as Ephesians 2:8-9 indicates self-originated works that are dead works. Instead our works of love are the works of God in us and NOT doing those works shows that we are NOT of God, and ultimately our soul is in peril.

As I said above the doctrinal stance of Catholics and Protestants are not two sides of the same coin. The Bible does NOT teach the we are saved by faith alone, although faith is crucial, but Protestant teaching does along with works being superfluous. However, the Bible does teach that we are "known by our fruits" and every passage that deals with our judgement is directly connected to our actions. This is what the Catholic Church teaches as shown above--we respond to God's grace in faith by walking in HIS works, not by ours! So it is unfortunate that there is some confusion by Catholics and Protestants alike as to the emphasis on works, but that is NOT what the Church teaches nor is it what the Word of God teaches.

So yes Ernie, you do follow Christ and not Luther if you truly believe:

"...that Jesus and His disciples said salvation by grace alone through Christ alone. No (SELF ORIGINATED)works, so that no one can boast, and no faith without works, or else it is dead.

What you said is essentially the essence of Catholic teaching AND the teaching of Christ.
May the peace of Christ be with you always.
Peace and truth,
Matthew

WWWO,

The Pope does not have power to excommunicate indiscriminately. The dissident bishops are careful to cover their tracks with footnotes and opening remarks like "we would like to discuss the possibility of ". So technically, their statements are not heretical because of footnotes and opening remarks.

There is also the point of the prudence of excommunicating or using other blunt tools of ecclesiastical discipline. It tends to make "virtual martyrs" out of the bishops and priests as people naturally sympathize with the underdog.

I think the Vatican showed real restraint and wisdom in letting the grass-roots (Mother Angelica was, in my estimation, was a powerful grass-roots voice as she said clearly all that the faithful wanted to say but were having trouble articlating and broadcasting) call the bishops and priests to faithfulness.

Then the dissident American bishops wound up being the "big bad bullies" in their efforts to silence Mother Angelica. Their power has waned considerably as they had to shed their "nice guy" image in order to bully Mother Angelica. The sympathy they commanded at the grass roots is small compared to what they might have enjoyed had the Vatican dropped the hammer. Just look at the support for the Pope at World Youth Day. Perhaps the Vatican's softer approach has something to do with this.

I think the internet, broadcasting, and lay ministries have given the Catholic faithful an unprecedented ability to learn the true teachings of the Church despite interference from dissident bishops and priests.

Anyhow, I'm drifting way off the original topic of what Protestants do right. To bring things back, I'd like to say that I think Catholics can learn much from Protestants on how to do catechesis. Protestants do a much better job of teaching the basics of their faith than Catholics do of teaching theirs. In fact, the some of the best catechetical resources Catholics have come from Protestant converts to Catholicism. I'm thinking of Cardinal Newman, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, and Steve Wood in particular.

While the Catholic Church may in fact contain the full deposit of divine revelation, it still has much room for improvement when it comes to communicating this knowledge to its members. I think we should be thanking Protestants for their excellent examples on how to do this better.

Matthew

I agree with much of what you write but most of my Prot friends would say that works are a needed evidence of faith and don't believe the "once saved always saved," tradition. Then again I don't hang with too many people that believe as Luther did that you can "commit adultery 200 times in 1 day and it is ok to do that."

BR

IMHO the ease of Protestant catechesis is partially due to the dualist oversimplification that gnostics or arians popularly spouted. We are the and/both guys that makes things tough.

The trinity is the perfect example...never mentioned in scripture but try to explain to a pure monotheist like a Muslim or JW the idea of 3 separate Gods in 1 God. The easy route is theirs. Or salvation by grace alone but involving faith and works as functions of God's grace. The easy path is to go out and say hey "faith alone" or "works alone" is our salvic path. We have to stick to our guns and man...look at Matt's prior post...ya that is like organic chem 500 to a freshman (as well as Matt writes too)! People don't want to hear that...they want it simple. How about justification with baptism...infants and adults...vs nah just age of consent (not found in scripture or trad) but that is what people want to hear. How about the Eucharist real prescence with the (accidents and substance)sensory appearance of bread and wine vs no such thing just pizza and grape juice. Kids want that grape juice shot glass man! Mary as a human but with an immaculate conception, well even Luther and Calvin believed that but today's microwave society that is too much...regular gal ... And on and on...

In Love

when we were one

Matthew:
Thanks for your response. Many protestants believe as I believe (salavtion by Grace alone in Christ alone, no works so that no one can boast and not faith without works or else it is dead)and it is unfair that many times protestants are painted with the same brush by many in the RCC. Also, it is unfortunate that 1) many outside the RCC don't understand the teachings of the RCC as it pertains to salvation and 2) the RCC has done a poor job of communicating this to its members and to the world. If what Broken Record stated is true, that bishops have failed to "proclaim the truth of the gospel" and that the vatican is aware but does not have the power to correct this than the RCC has failed in its most important function. If what Broken Record stated in his last post is correct then it sounds to me that the RCC has become too much of a political organization and these politics have interfered with its main purpose which is to proclaim the truth of the gospels to the world. Again, so that Broken Record does not think that I am trying to "blame others", I am only looking at the reality of the situation and not trying to assign blame to any one individual or organization (believe me there is enough blame to go around for all of us). I agree with Broken Record that the Protestants do a better job at promoting the gospels (although many protestant denominations have preached a different gospel than the true Biblical gospels)and that the structure of the RCC and its internal strife may be hindering them from teaching truths to its members and the world.

Now, I understand what the RCC teaches regarding salvation and you pointed that out well in your last post. However, it brings up another question regarding the RCC's teaching of salvation. I have always been told (or at least it has been my impression) that according to the RCC one must participate in the Sacraments in order to obtain salvation. That if one does not participate in the Sacraments that one cannot "go to heaven". Is this true? Is this a true teaching of the RCC? From what you posted above the answer is "no" but why have I heard that propagated by catholics?

May God bless us always,
Ernie

Ernie, I am not sure exactly what you are referring to in your questions. My two best guesses as to the teachings you are referring to:

1. "Outside the Church, No Salvation"
2. The precepts of the Church

The first statement, when combined with the idea that the Sacrament of Baptism marks entry into the Church leads to: "Baptism is necessary for salvation". The Second Vatican Council, the Catechism, and Dominus Iesus all refer to three kinds of baptism: Baptism by water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (ordinary baptism which need not occur in the Roman Catholic Church), Baptism by blood (people who confess Jesus as Lord but are put to death before they can realize their intentions), and Baptism by desire (people who follow God's truth according to what God has revealed to them but are through no fault of their own denied the opportunity to meet the Church and receive an ordinary baptism). Biblical examples that hint at such "mysterious" entries into the Church would be the thief on the cross and Jesus saying that the people of Sodom would rise up and condemn the Pharisees because the people of Sodom would have repented if Jesus had done for them what he did for the pharisees. Bishop Finney rejected baptism by desire and baptism by blood - his teachings were declared heretical.

The other possibility is that you speak of the "precepts of the Church": the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday (unless serious reason makes this impractical), to receive Communion at least once a year, to go to Confession at least once a year, and to receive marriage in the Church if one gets married. A Catholic who knowingly and willingly fails to participate in the sacraments this way is said to have committed mortal sin, rejected God's grace, and turned away from God in such a way as to render salvation impossible without first turning back to God (often called contrition, repentance, or metanoia).

The "precepts of the Church" do not apply to people who are not part of the Catholic Church. The Church understands that such people can receive salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church and also outside the visible boundaries of the Christian Churches. Also note that the Catholic Church presumes that a baptism done in a Protestant Chuch is a valid Sacrament even though it occurs outside the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church.

I apologize for the vagueness of my answers but I am unsure of what precise teachings you are referring to.

Hello my name is Steve I have grown up Baptist. (I'm from South Carolina, I didn't know there was anything other then Catholic and Baptist till I joined the army) I think that as a protestant that I get a lot from my Preacher on sunday just by the way he speaks to me, now I'm not saying its ok for just anyone to become a Baptist, I'm simply saying that I get a lot out of it, there are things that Catholics do right as well;
They actually show up for church(mass?) because they are afraid they might die(aren't we all) and not have had a chance be absolved. or thats how I was taught.
They have more reminders that God is watching them around the house, such as lil Virgin Mary's, plus there is the cross that seems to happen every time something of vaguely ill intent happens, or scares them.

On another note I thought you should know that as Catholics I have Family that is, so truth be told you might consider me a smart alec, they do, but they laugh and see my point, as I do yours above.
on a more serious note, I have a friend whom is a Wiccan/Christian.
he uses the same bible verses that ya'll do to explain his use of symbolism, and candles, and incense, even starts his Prayer Circle with the Lords Prayer, and A Hail Mary.
what are your thoughts on that?
thanks
-steve

Stephen,

I don't know much about your Wiccan friend. But I would guess that if there were a problem with his conduct, it would be engaging in sorcery, seances, tarot readings, or astrological horoscopes, and that saying the Lord's Prayer, doing Hail Mary's, and incense would be the least of his problems. I'm not too sure what you are getting at.

Are you suggesting that because a Wiccan says a Hail Mary or a Lord's Prayer, all Christians should stop saying the Lord's Prayer? I believe Hitler ate breakfast before lunch, but last time I checked, most Christians eat breakfast before lunch as well.

By the way, Catholics do not get absolved of mortal sin at Mass. There are two known ways of dealing with mortal sin: Perfectly asking God for forgiveness anywhere. Imperfectly asking God for forgiveness inside the confessional. The ideal, of course, is to ask perfectly in the confessional.

BR

beautiful

In Love

when we were one

I hope this site has not ceased thru disinterest! Dialogue between Protestants and Catholics is not only a good thing it is essential if we truly believe we are all brothers in Christ. (Let's first of all agree that we ARE). The main thing I notice in discourse such as this is that ignorance is the enemy of us all - because it is so prevelant and destroys (or seriously hinders) any chance we have for "unity". Edmund

To all,
Just to let you know, Jimmy Akin has posted a link to an evangelical website where Catholics are praised for many things instead of being bashed--similar to the spirit of Jay's posting. I was pleasantly surprised! Check it out:

(From jimmyakin.org)
What An Evangelical Appreciates About Catholics

I was delighted yesterday to receive the following e-mail from blogger extraordinare Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost:

Hey Jimmy,
Since I don't have any Catholic readers of my own I thought I'd share this with you. ; )
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003497.html

What's found at the link is a post Joe wrote in which, though he doesn't feel able to cross the Tiber, expresses sincere and thoughtful appreciation for Catholics. Specifically, he appreciates their emphasis on the sanctity of life, ecumenism, and Mary.

CHECK IT OUT.

And be sure to leave him comments in the same spirit of thoughtful respect and appreciation.

Hello everyone!

I just wanted to thank all of you for giving all your input especially on this website. I have been searching the web for countless of hours and it has been so difficult for me to learn the true similarities and differences in the true teaching between Protestants and Catholics. This site does a wonderful job of educating the "average Joe" like me.

Usually it is a site that is one sided and we never get to see the whole picture or the other side. So thank you for all your efforts and your time, all of you are truly a blessing to the world!

God Bless all of you!

Post a comment