Protestantism & Catholicism

Dr. Baltar

In a thread yesterday, I made the following statement:

Sir Baralot wrote: »

The majority of people in this country are de facto Protestants.

In my opinion, I believe that the majority of people in this country although claiming to be "Catholic" are in fact more closely associated towards Lutheranism or another form of Protestantism.

I say this because: (and correct me if my definitions are incorrect)

+ Catholicism takes it's beliefs from Jesus, the bible and "God's Representative on Earth" - the Pope aka The Church.

Where as:

+ Protestants take their beliefs from Jesus and the Bible Only.

Because the majority of people in this country frequently ignore such papal guidelines of no sex before marriage, no use of condoms no masturbation and other rules that are not found in protestantism I think that in practice most catholics in this country are actually protestants.

Discuss.

prinz

Not in my opinion, á la carte Catholicism does not equal Protestantism. Protestantism does not equal Catholicism-lite. I think you'll find many Protestants agree with your "papal guidelines".

Dr. Baltar

prinz wrote: »

Not in my opinion, á la carte Catholicism does not equal Protestantism. Protestantism does not equal Catholicism-lite. I think you'll find many Protestants agree with your "papal guidelines".

But would you not agree (historically at least) that the main division between Protestantism and Catholicism was one sect believed in the authority of the Pope where as the other didn't?
In effect a lot of á la carte Catholics are very similar to Lutherans.

Soul Winner

Reminds me of a quote I read on a sig once: "In theory practice and theory are the same but in practice they are not." or something like that.. Yeah most people in this country who say that they are Catholics are not really Catholics because they don't practice Catholicism. Let us assume that Catholicism is the one true way to God. How will most people past muster at the pearly gates with Peter when they tell him that they are Catholic but not a practicing Catholic. I can't imagine that going down too well with Peter for some strange reason, or maybe that's just me. I just can't help but imagine one of his eyebrows raising abruptly on hearing this just as he was about to sign one of these kidders in.

Iwasfrozen

Sir Baralot wrote: »

But would you not agree (historically at least) that the main division between Protestantism and Catholicism was one sect believed in the authority of the Pope where as the other didn't?
In effect a lot of á la carte Catholics are very similar to Lutherans.

But alot of Prodestants follow your above papal rules in all but name.
Surly then they are really more Catholic than Prodestant ?

Dr. Baltar

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But alot of Prodestants follow your above papal rules in all but name.
Surly then they are really more Catholic than Prodestant ?

I would agree with you.
Lutherans are very similar to á la carte Catholics just like á la carte Catholics are very similar to Lutherans.

postcynical

I agree with Prinz above.

Whatever about practicing what we believe in, I find many Catholics don't know what our church teaches. Even a fairly committed Catholic (like me) with the freedom to study our church's teachings cannot be expected to know every detail of its teaching. I'm still being fed milk not solid food. What identifies us as Catholic is that by and large we trust that the church's teachings are sound.

For instance, during Mass Catholics should not be praying the rosary. Yet, it's common to hear the rattle of beads during Mass. Many of us eat meat on Fridays. When we understand why the rule/guideline is there then we wouldn't think of praying the rosary during Mass or eating meat on Fridays, but if we don't understand the reasons for this the rule doesn't make sense, so it's rightly ignored.

IMO, the important thing is that Catholics try and put Jesus at the centre of their lives. Then the teachings. Then the specifically Catholic traditions. And finally these rules will make sense and be adhered to (or chosen) as a way of honouring God. Irish Catholic teaching is often backwards - learn the rules first and then worry about the spirit. (But this is true of many aspects of Irish education)

By and large Protestants know what they believe, know why they believe it and practice what they believe. That's not lapsed Catholicism, even if superficially the behaviour can be similar.

postcynical

Soul Winner wrote: »

Reminds me of a quote I read on a sig once: "In theory practice and theory are the same but in practice they are not." or something like that.. Yeah most people in this country who say that they are Catholics are not really Catholics because they don't practice Catholicism. Let us assume that Catholicism is the one true way to God. How will most people past muster at the pearly gates with Peter when they tell him that they are Catholic but not a practicing Catholic. I can't imagine that going down too well with Peter for some strange reason, or maybe that's just me. I just can't help but imagine one of his eyebrows raising abruptly on hearing this just as he was about to sign one of these kidders in.

Reminds me of Revelation 3:16 ....:eek:

Rev3:16 wrote:

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

philologos

I wouldn't agree that Protestantism is an alacarte form of Christianity. It depends on how conservative or how liberal that form of Protestantism is.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that Protestantism is an alacarte form of Christianity

Well, in that post of yours which I dredged up last week from a year or two back, you said that you picked your variation of christianity because it suited your interpretation.

Is that not à-la-carte?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Well, in that post of yours which I dredged up last week from a year or two back, you said that you picked your variation of christianity because it suited your interpretation.

Is that not à-la-carte?

A year or two back needs to be taken into account too.

For me it's not so much the question of Anglicanism that is important, but the question of Christianity. I don't share views to everyone in my church (on a global scale), but I determine what I believe from what I find reasonable. You might have remembered the post where I said that my Christianity doesn't always follow strict denominational lines. I.E I find that Anglicanism from the 39 Articles of Religion is relatively consistent with the Biblical text.

I don't find such a view alacarte because I don't attempt to dismiss any part of the Biblical text. Rather I attempt to understand it as best as I humanly can.

Quote mining is only so useful.

Dades

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Because the majority of people in this country frequently ignore such papal guidelines of no sex before marriage, no use of condoms no masturbation and other rules that are not found in protestantism I think that in practice most catholics in this country are actually protestants.

What rules are there specific to protestantism that people do comply with and makes them protestant?

Phototoxin

My experience of protestants in general is that they are better catholics than most catholics in ireland!

asdasd

OP. you are totally correct. most mainline Christianity is like Anglicanism. Catholics ignore the Pope, and therefore "Protest" against his teachings. Some very good books on this very subject - in particular in relation to the "Protestantization of Catholicism in America". Will search for the link.

LordSutch

Most Protestants are catholics, & most Roman Catholics do not abide by the rules of Rome, ergo we are all equal in the eyes of God > The Nicene Creed, as practised in the Protestant Church (C of I) included.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Catholic = Universal = Christian = Protestant & Roman Catholic.

Húrin

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Because the majority of people in this country frequently ignore such papal guidelines of no sex before marriage, no use of condoms no masturbation and other rules that are not found in protestantism I think that in practice most catholics in this country are actually protestants.

Discuss.

I disagree completely. Most casual Catholics think that salvation comes from believing in God, going to mass and getting baptised as a baby. Protestants agree with none of these.

This issue of salvation is quite fundamental.

lostexpectation

Húrin wrote: »

Most casual Catholics think that salvation comes from believing in God, going to mass and getting baptised as a baby.

they dont' really

homer911

Húrin wrote: »

I disagree completely. Most casual Catholics think that salvation comes from believing in God, going to mass and getting baptised as a baby. Protestants agree with none of these.

This issue of salvation is quite fundamental.

Sorry Húrin, but there are many "Protestants" who would believe just that (substitute Communion for Mass) - you will find them everywhere, just like the parable of the farmer sowing the seed.

I agree that salvation is fundamental and often the message of salvation is simply not preached in many churches - at least not as I would understand it

Phototoxin

Why do protestants think we need to be saved anyway.. I cannot get my head around that one

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

Why do protestants think we need to be saved anyway.. I cannot get my head around that one

All Christians think that we need to be saved because Jesus thought so too.

dogbert27

I thought the fundamental differences in the beliefs is that Catholics believe in the immaculate conception where as Protestants don't and that Catholics believe they are actually receiving the body and blood of Christ at Communion where as Protestants believe that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ?

PDN

dogbert27 wrote: »

I thought the fundamental differences in the beliefs is that Catholics believe in the immaculate conception where as Protestants don't and that Catholics believe they are actually receiving the body and blood of Christ at Communion where as Protestants believe that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ?

They are differences, but quite minor ones. The two biggies are salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and the authority of Scripture alone (sola sciptura).

I can't locate the exact quote, but Martin Luther once said something along the lines of: "Let the Pope concede sola scriptura and sola fide and I will gladly concede everything else and kneel before him."

santing

PDN wrote: »

They are differences, but quite minor ones

Minor compared to what? Both the immaculate conception and the RC Mass are linked with idolatry and superstition ... The difference may look minor to the casual beholder, but effectively it is the same difference of TRUE vs. FALSE.
When the new blasphemy law was passed I thought it was sad that these issues do no longer give rise to the outrage they should create.

PDN

santing wrote: »

Minor compared to what? Both the immaculate conception and the RC Mass are linked with idolatry and superstition ... The difference may look minor to the casual beholder, but effectively it is the same difference of TRUE vs. FALSE.
When the new blasphemy law was passed I thought it was sad that these issues do no longer give rise to the outrage they should create.

Minor compared to the authority of Scripture alone and the doctrine of justification by faith.

Get those two right and the other stuff pretty well becomes unsustainable, because it is based on tradition rather than Scripture. For example, you can change someone's mind on the Immaculate Conception, but they may still hold unbiblical doctrines in a whole host of other areas. But get them to acknowledge sola Scriptura and their belief in the Immaculate Conception will fade away like the morning mist. So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is merely a symptom of a much bigger problem - namely the issue of authority.

One of the reasons why Protestantism failed so miserably to effect a popular Reformation in Ireland was because they chose to concentrate on the symptoms rather than on the big issues.

santing

PDN wrote: »

Minor compared to the authority of Scripture alone and the doctrine of justification by faith.

Get those two right and the other stuff pretty well becomes unsustainable, because it is based on tradition rather than Scripture.

OK Thanks. But I still wouldn't call them minor

BrianCalgary

santing wrote: »

Minor compared to what? Both the immaculate conception and the RC Mass are linked with idolatry and superstition .

Where does teh superstition and idolatry come into it????

BrianCalgary

dogbert27 wrote: »

I thought the fundamental differences in the beliefs is that Catholics believe in the immaculate conception where as Protestants don't and that Catholics believe they are actually receiving the body and blood of Christ at Communion where as Protestants believe that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ?

Not so, there are a few different ways to look at communion.
Catholicism teaches that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.
Lutherans hold that it changes after ingestion.
Other commentators would say that Christ is present spiritually within the bread and wine.
And finally Zwingli argued for symbolism.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

I can't locate the exact quote, but Martin Luther once said something along the lines of: "Let the Pope concede sola scriptura and sola fide and I will gladly concede everything else and kneel before him."

Looking for the quote (which I couldn't find, so perhaps it's apocryphal), I came across this on the ten differences between Catholics and Protestants, which is probably appropriate for late on Friday night:

1. Catholics kneel in church; Protestants do not kneel because they have bad knees. 2. Catholics like to light as many candles as possible; Protestants are a bit more conscious of fire-safety. 3. Catholics attend church every Sunday; Protestants take off Sundays during the football season. 4. Catholic priests dress up in costumes; Protestant ministers are more fashion-sensitive. 5. Catholics promote chastity before marriage; Protestants promote the hush-hush policy on sex. 6. Catholics seek aid from the Saints; Protestants are stuck with each other. 7. Catholics are artistic innovators; Protestants are culinary experts. 8. Catholics receive Communion; Protestants are on a diet. 9. Catholics laugh at themselves; Protestants laugh at Catholics. 10. Catholics will go to heaven; Protestants will go to Disney World.

asdasd

Where does teh superstition and idolatry come into it????

The terms themselves are bigoted nonsense. If Catholcisism is " superstition and idolatry " then where is Shintiusm, Hindisum, Confusicansism etc?

It is the (pure) monotheists you have to be scared of, Taleban or Protestantism.

EDIT: Both groups are iconlastics, for instance the Taleban's opposition to Buddhist statues. But English protestantism take the biscuit in the destruction of what these nutcases call superstition and idolism. Utter fanatics.

wolfsbane

asdasd wrote: »

The terms themselves are bigoted nonsense. If Catholcisism is " superstition and idolatry " then where is Shintiusm, Hindisum, Confusicansism etc?

It is the (pure) monotheists you have to be scared of, Taleban or Protestantism.

EDIT: Both groups are iconlastics, for instance the Taleban's opposition to Buddhist statues. But English protestantism take the biscuit in the destruction of what these nutcases call superstition and idolism. Utter fanatics.

I agree that each person should be permitted to worship/venerate the idols of his choice, but the issue is whether such practices can be squared with the teachings of the Bible. Protestants say no. Catholics say their tradition permits it and excuse the Biblical ban by saying it:
1. applies only to false gods.
2. and does not cover 'veneration' of idols.

So it is not bigoted nonsense - it is a sober assessment of a practice any impartial observer could not separate from those of the Hindus or pagan idolaters.

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

They are differences, but quite minor ones. The two biggies are salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and the authority of Scripture alone (sola sciptura).

I can't locate the exact quote, but Martin Luther once said something along the lines of: "Let the Pope concede sola scriptura and sola fide and I will gladly concede everything else and kneel before him."

Well if he still has knees, perhaps Luther is on one knee before the Pope now:
http://markmzima.xanga.com/682889388/luther%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%99sola-fide%E2%80%99-is-true-said-pope-benedict-xvi/

*added another source, I presume this is the essay from which all the headlines came.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree that each person should be permitted to worship/venerate the idols of his choice, but the issue is whether such practices can be squared with the teachings of the Bible. Protestants say no. Catholics say their tradition permits it and excuse the Biblical ban by saying it:
1. applies only to false gods.
2. and does not cover 'veneration' of idols.

So it is not bigoted nonsense - it is a sober assessment of a practice any impartial observer could not separate from those of the Hindus or pagan idolaters.

I know of no Catholic that venerates any idol. This is a protestant myth.

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

Well if he still has knees, perhaps Luther is on one knee before the Pope now:
http://markmzima.xanga.com/682889388/luther%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%99sola-fide%E2%80%99-is-true-said-pope-benedict-xvi/

*added another source, I presume this is the essay from which all the headlines came.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Thanks for the links - very interesting!

As the first guy says, not too clear but certainly suggests to some a revision of Catholic dogma. It would need fleshed out before one could be sure that it supported or contradicted Trent.

Is he saying our acts of love - feeding the hungry, for example - plus our faith add up to justification? Luther was clear about what he meant as works of the Law that did not justify us - all the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Circumcision and charity.

Justification was by faith alone - charity followed, but was not a grounds of justification. We are not saved by keeping the commandments + faith. It was Christ's work that justified us, which we entered by faith. The thief on the cross had no works of charity to do, yet was as justified as Paul the apostle who laid down his life in service for Christ.

Much that was said at Trent can be taken as in line with Luther's actual view, though Trent misrepresented him. But for me the difference on Justification becomes clearer in this passage (emphasis mine):
On the increase of Justification received:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I know of no Catholic that venerates any idol. This is a protestant myth.

Strange. Veneration is the word the Roman Catholic Church uses to describe what they give to their idols.

This from (emphasis mine):
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Veneration of Images
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:

[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Psalm 134:15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).

As an example of contemporary Catholic teaching on this subject one could hardly quote anything better expressed than the "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" used in England by command of the Catholic bishops. In four points, this book sums up the whole Catholic position exactly:

"It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone."
"We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God."
"We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them."
"We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for the links - very interesting!

Glad you liked tham

As the first guy says, not too clear but certainly suggests to some a revision of Catholic dogma. It would need fleshed out before one could be sure that it supported or contradicted Trent.

Is he saying our acts of love - feeding the hungry, for example - plus our faith add up to justification? Luther was clear about what he meant as works of the Law that did not justify us - all the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Circumcision and charity.

Justification was by faith alone - charity followed, but was not a grounds of justification. We are not saved by keeping the commandments + faith. It was Christ's work that justified us, which we entered by faith. The thief on the cross had no works of charity to do, yet was as justified as Paul the apostle who laid down his life in service for Christ.

Good example with the thief, it reenforces the central argument here. The first guy (as you called him) was just the first link from a google search but I had a good read of the second guy and although I'm loath to summarise a very tightly-written piece, I think he sums it up nicely:

the second guy wrote:

For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.

Maybe to name the second guy would be a red rag to a bull;), but let's just judge the merits of what he's written.

Much that was said at Trent can be taken as in line with Luther's actual view, though Trent misrepresented him. But for me the difference on Justification becomes clearer in this passage (emphasis mine):
On the increase of Justification received:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

Is that from Trent? I'm a bit uneasy with the central theme there, but am comfortable with the idea that the more one loves God and lives in Christ, the closer one bocomes to Christ and the more Christ makes Himself known to the practicing believer. However, the idea that this is done as a reward for our virtue is wrong - it is more likely that while living in Christ we are more perceptive and sensitive to His presence around us. Would you agree with that?

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

Strange. Veneration is the word the Roman Catholic Church uses to describe what they give to their idols.

This from (emphasis mine):
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Veneration of Images
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:

[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Psalm 134:15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).

As an example of contemporary Catholic teaching on this subject one could hardly quote anything better expressed than the "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" used in England by command of the Catholic bishops. In four points, this book sums up the whole Catholic position exactly:

"It is forbidden to give divine honour or worship to the angels and saints for this belongs to God alone."
"We should pay to the angels and saints an inferior honour or worship, for this is due to them as the servants and special friends of God."
"We should give to relics, crucifixes and holy pictures a relative honour, as they relate to Christ and his saints and are memorials of them."
"We do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

The word 'veneration' is fine - it's your use of the word 'idols' that I dispute. An idol by definition is something that is worshipped. Splitting hairs perhaps, but idolatry is a no-no Christianity101.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idol

*edit: We do worship the Eucharist but that's a different subject. If we are mistaken in that practice then that might be idolatry but since we believe it is Jesus actually present in the Eucharist the worship is to Jesus rather than to the wafer Host.

PDN

I think we could have a productive discussion here if some of us reined in our language a bit.

On the Protestant side, it might be helpful not to sling around terms like 'idolatry' and 'superstition'.

On the Catholic side, we won't get very far if everything that is not Catholic is automatically judged as therefore being wrong.

paulaa

PDN wrote: »

I think we could have a productive discussion here if some of us reined in our language a bit.

On the Protestant side, it might be helpful not to sling around terms like 'idolatry' and 'superstition'.

On the Catholic side, we won't get very far if everything that is not Catholic is automatically judged as therefore being wrong.

The use of statues, images etc is not just a Protestant v Catholic thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Idolatry

LordSutch

postcynical wrote: »

The word 'veneration' is fine - it's your use of the word 'idols' that I dispute. An idol by definition is something that is worshipped. Splitting hairs perhaps, but idolatry is a no-no Christianity101.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/idol

One of the major differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics down through the decades (in Ireland) has been the 'perceived' worshiping of statues/ Idols by the RC Church & their congregation. Example; Go into any RC Church and you will find colourful idols of various saints & statues of the virgin Mary > you will also see these alabaster idlos in grottos dotted all over the country, (and I presume that many RC folk pray to these statues)? whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

Hence the Protestant 'percetion' of Idol/Statue worship.

prinz

Camelot wrote: »

I presume that many RC folk pray to at these statues whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

FYP. And therein lies the difference.

homer911

There are many differences in style and theology between Protestants and Catholics, but as PDN pointed out, they are minor compared to justification by faith and the authority of scripture alone.

One of the other style differences is the general absence of crucifix symbology in the Protestant faith *. Protestants tend to focus on the empty cross ("we serve a risen saviour...") whereas Catholics focus on the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus on the cross and hence the crucifix. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different.

Perhaps this is where uninformed non-Catholics derive the whole "guilt complex" view of Roman Catholicism (and maybe its something for Protestants to think about..)

* It does appear in some Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox churches

LordSutch

Just a small point, seeing as many protestants are *catholics & believe in 'one catholic and apostolic church', the term 'Non-Catholic' should be avoided at all costs when refering to Protestants.

*(catholic) does not always equate to 'Roman Catholic'.

Slav

homer911 wrote: »

One of the other style differences is the general absence of crucifix symbology in the Protestant faith *.

* It does appear in some Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox churches

Oops! Am I a protestant? :eek:

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Oops! Am I a protestant? :eek:

Well, the good Orthodox folks of Constantinople had their seasons of iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th Centuries where they smashed statues with a fervency exceeding anything that happened during the Reformation.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Well, the good Orthodox folks of Constantinople had their seasons of iconoclasm in the 8th and 9th Centuries where they smashed statues with a fervency exceeding anything that happened during the Reformation.

I think there were not much (if any) venerated statues in Byzantine so they concentrated more on icons and having fun smashing their opponents heads with them. Though I agree, if 3rd-9th century Greeks could time travel to 16th-21st century Europe they would most certainly be bored.

But as you mentioned Byzantine iconoclasm, all Orthodox Churches every year on the first Sunday of the Great Lent celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy in remembrance of this very iconoclasm being finally defeated in 9th century. So from the Orthodox point of view these folks were not good or at least were not Orthodox.

Slav

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

I used to know a Lutheran who always insisted on 2) which (if true) does not make Roman Catholicism much different from Lutheranism at least in terms of the methodology used. Interpretation of certain passages (and therefore teachings) can differ of course but don't they differ among denominations in Protestantism?

LordSutch

Anglican (low Church) = plain cross > St Patricks Cathedral Dublin comes to mind. Anglican (high Church) Crucifix is acceptable > 'St John's Church' Sandymount is a prime example of a 'high church' and one could easily think that they were worshiping in a RC Church, "they even have incense"! which is totally forboden in all Anglican low churches in Ireland, which must account for 90%+ of the Anglican tradition.

postcynical

Camelot wrote: »

One of the major differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics down through the decades (in Ireland) has been the 'perceived' worshiping of statues/ Idols by the RC Church & their congregation. Example; Go into any RC Church and you will find colourful idols of various saints & statues of the virgin Mary > you will also see these alabaster idlos in grottos dotted all over the country, (and I presume that many RC folk pray to these statues)? whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

Hence the Protestant 'percetion' of Idol/Statue worship.

I think this is a fair perception. I've often stated before that many of us (Roman) Catholics are completely uninformed about our faith and especially about many Catholic practices. I don't want to speculate about what oher people are doing, whether they're praying 'to' the statues or as Prinz optimistically suggests 'at' the statues.... but I'm frequently amazed how few Mass-goers know when to stand or kneel or sit at Mass. I suspect many of them don't have a clue what's going on and would be as well off if the sacrifice were in Latin. But I really can't know what's in their heads or hearts.

For the record - stand and pray, kneel for the consecration and sit and listen to the readings and at the offertory. (There is of course local lee-way but this is the official recommendation). There's way too much kneeling common, possibly a remnant of the pre 1960s Mass.

postcynical

Slav wrote: »

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

Not an expert but I'd say 2) is my belief and the expression 'sola scriptura' to me suggests 1).

BrianCalgary

Camelot wrote: »

One of the major differences between Protestants & Roman Catholics down through the decades (in Ireland) has been the 'perceived' worshiping of statues/ Idols by the RC Church & their congregation. Example; Go into any RC Church and you will find colourful idols of various saints & statues of the virgin Mary > you will also see these alabaster idlos in grottos dotted all over the country, (and I presume that many RC folk pray to these statues)? whether in Church or by the side of the road/ right?

Hence the Protestant 'percetion' of Idol/Statue worship.

And it is not a worship of the statue. If I gaze up on a crucifix which causes emotion to rise up within me to kneel and worship God for His sacrifice, in order to atone my sins, then so be it.

Someone has created that crucifix by the work of their hands to glorify God.u
In the same vein, in evangelical churches, songs are sung, misic is blared, emotions rise and we call that 'worship'.

Either way, emotions are evoked by the created art, either visual or audio, that causes us to worship our creator.

The statues tell a visual story of Biblical events and depict biblical characters. God even had the Israelites carve images of cherubim to carry the ark.

Catholics do not worship idols any more than evnagelicals worship music or protestants worship the words of the creeds that are said during their liturgies.

PS. Thanks for the clarification on the 'veneration' definition wolfsbane. Note though that the paragraph does speak against 'worship' of said statues.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And it is not a worship of the statue. If I gaze up on a crucifix which causes emotion to rise up within me to kneel and worship God for His sacrifice, in order to atone my sins, then so be it.

Someone has created that crucifix by the work of their hands to glorify God.u
In the same vein, in evangelical churches, songs are sung, misic is blared, emotions rise and we call that 'worship'.

Either way, emotions are evoked by the created art, either visual or audio, that causes us to worship our creator.

The statues tell a visual story of Biblical events and depict biblical characters. God even had the Israelites carve images of cherubim to carry the ark.

Catholics do not worship idols any more than evnagelicals worship music or protestants worship the words of the creeds that are said during their liturgies.

PS. Thanks for the clarification on the 'veneration' definition wolfsbane. Note though that the paragraph does speak against 'worship' of said statues.

By what authority does one decide it is OK to use images in our worship/devotions? The Bible expressly forbade such things. The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image. The images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were hidden from sight of the congregation, and only the high priest would have seen them, once a year, when he entered the Most Holy place to sprinkle the blood on the ark. Even he did not pray at/to them.

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.