• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do Catholics now see Protestants?

Rumpelstil

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
43,222
Reaction score
9,369
Location
Schwarzwald = Black Forest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
once upon I time they were seen as heretics. some were even burned.
And some wars started because of different religions.

Today things are different. I dont know of any Catholics that would doubt that Protestants are Christians.

Or do you know of any?
 
and once upon a time the Catholic Church stated that it was the only one where to find salvation. In Latin: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
in German: außerhalb der Kirche kein Heil.
in English: besides the Church no salvation.

This also has changed for the better.
 
Not any that would expressly state those doubts, despite their attention to their traditions and "doctrines of men".
and once upon a time the Catholic Church stated that it was the only one where to find salvation. In Latin: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This also has changed for the better.
It was never true.

Do Catholics believe that God is always good?
 
Isn't religion wonderful.
 
From Orthodox perspective, protestants are the product of Rome pushing boundaries with the papacy and theological innovation. They're right on their grievances with Catholicism but wrong on much of their new theological views. You can't separate history and tradition from Christianity.

And what are the fruits of protestantism? Hundreds of thousands of secs and division because these people can't agree on what the Bible says. They argue over verses when none of them can read Greek. None of them have Bishops going back to the Apostles. Every pastor is his own Pope for his congregation. Many of the radical reformers reject basic tenants of Christianity such as infant baptism.
 
Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever quoted oral Jewish tradition to support their teachings but, rather, appealed to the written Word of God. (Mt 4:4-10; Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15-17) Once the Christian congregation was established, observance of the unscriptural Jewish traditions amounted to a “fruitless form of conduct” that Jewish persons had ‘received by tradition from their forefathers [Gr., pa·tro·pa·ra·doʹtou, “given along from fathers”].’ (1Pe 1:18) Upon becoming Christians, those Jews abandoned such traditions. When some false teachers in Colossae urged taking up that form of worship, Paul warned against “the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.” Evidently he meant, especially, the traditions of Judaism.—Col 2:8, 13-17.

The “traditions” that are necessary for worship of God that is clean and undefiled were in time included as part of the inspired Scriptures. Hence, the traditions or precepts that were transmitted by Jesus and the apostles and that were vital for life were not left in oral form to be distorted by the passage of time but were accurately recorded in the Bible for the benefit of Christians living at later periods.—Joh 20:30, 31; Re 22:18.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004463
 
You can separate man-made traditions from what is in the Bible.
And what are the fruits of protestantism? Hundreds of thousands of secs and division because these people can't agree on what the Bible says.
Not justifying any particular sect, but "Hundreds of thousands"? Hyperbole much?
They argue over verses when none of them can read Greek.
Simply false and I think you know that. But maybe not.
None of them have Bishops going back to the Apostles.
Irrelevant.
Every pastor is his own Pope for his congregation. Many of the radical reformers reject basic tenants of Christianity such as infant baptism.

More bovine scat. Where do you get the notion that infant baptism is a "basic tenet of Christianity"? Certainly not the Bible.

Some Catholics (and protestants) falsely believe that God puts sickness on people and that divine healing passed away with the apostles.
 
are there any Catholics here who could comment?
@tshade ?
Catholics generally view Protestants as "separated brethren," recognizing them as Christians who share fundamental beliefs like the Trinity and baptism, but also acknowledging differences in doctrine and practice. While Catholics believe the fullness of truth is found within the Catholic Church, they don't exclude Protestants from salvation if they are sincerely seeking God and living a good life, even if they are unaware of the Catholic Church's claims.
 
The tradition that was handed down from Jesus to the Apostles is inseparable from the religion of Christianity. This is why 2000 years later we are still eating the body and blood of Christ.

Protestantism is a rejection of historical Christianity. They deny all the martyrs and saints of the early Church.
 
I remember as a kid in cathechism the nuns warning us to stay out of those places (Protestant churches).
 
CHRIST seems all saved individuals as HIS CHURCH. The great thing about denominations is that it keeps everyone on their doctrinal toes. The Roman Catholic church took YEARS to get its act together, but you'd have to admit that Protestantism is the way the HOLY SPIRIT accomplished it. Investigate what this latest pope has been saying and doing... Even pope Frances was leading the way for spiritual reform.
 
Last edited:
The tradition that was handed down from Jesus to the Apostles is inseparable from the religion of Christianity.
Again, where is the tradition of infant baptism referred to in the Bible?

The Bible teaches us in Mark 7:13 "thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”".

Or is that different in the Greek?
This is why 2000 years later we are still eating the body and blood of Christ.
As do non-Catholic Christians. Albeit not agreeing with "transsubstantiation".
Protestantism is a rejection of historical Christianity. They deny all the martyrs and saints of the early Church.
What do you mean by "deny"? I do not deny Stephen et al. I just do not pray to them.
 
I could show you other verses in the Bible where were taught to keep the traditions specifically the ones past down from the Apostles. And other verses where Priests are the people responsible for guarding the flock and keeping the Church together. It's important whenever Jesus says that in Mark is referring specifically to the traditions of the Jews which he found inconsistent with the Torah.

Asking the holy men and women that came before us for their intercession in prayer has been apart of the Christian faith throughout history. And prayer does not equal worship. This is a common misunderstanding among protestants.
 
With their eyes
 

yes, especially prayers to Mary.
that is no worship.
 
CHRIST sees all saved individuals as HIS CHURCH. The great thing about denominations is that it keeps everyone on their doctrinal toes. The Roman Catholic church took YEARS to get its act together, but you'd have to admit that Protestantism is the way the HOLY SPIRIT accomplished it. Investigate what this latest pope has been saying and doing... Even pope Frances was leading the way for spiritual reform. I still cringe regarding prayers to dead people. CHRIST tells us to pray to the FATHER in the name of the SON. Praying to MARY is exactly like praying to your mother who passed on. She isn't GOD and she can't accept special orders. I'm not even sure that Christians who have died even know what is presently happening specifically here on earth. I know of only one biblical incidence where a saint returned, and it wasn't at all pleasant. That was regarding Samuel who returned at King Saul's request to the witch of Endor, but Samuel reprimand King Saul and informed him that he and his sons would die in battle...
 
I could show you other verses in the Bible where were taught to keep the traditions specifically the ones past down from the Apostles.
Please do. I would be very interested in reading those verses. What about the infant baptism you mentioned? Thanks!

Even if there were some extra biblical traditions passed down, they have exaclty zero to do with one's salvation.
Yes, of course. But also using that as an example of what NOT to do.
Asking the holy men and women that came before us for their intercession in prayer has been apart of the Christian faith throughout history. And prayer does not equal worship. This is a common misunderstanding among protestants.
True, but that does not mean it is how one should pray. Jesus gave us the ultimate example of how to pray.

Intercession prayer is totally extra-biblical. There is nothing in the new Testament where Jesus or in the epistles where we are directed to pray to MEN for "intercession". It is always directly to God.

God is no "respecter of persons".

Acts 10:34
"So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,"
 
Last edited:
Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever quoted oral Jewish tradition to support their teachings but, rather, appealed to the written Word of God. (Mt 4:4-10; Ro 15:4; 2Ti 3:15-17)


Wrong!

Just to be clear:

Jesus was admonishing the Pharisees for their own interpretation of the oral tradition.
They would be like the JW today.



The oral tradition was practiced before the Bible was written.
That's where our Bible came from - the oral Old Testament that was passed down from generation to generation!


Bottom line:
If Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament - then, He was using Oral Tradition in His Teachings!



All agree that the present written form of the Talmud was compiled after the time of Jesus.
But the “proto-Talmudic” tradition was “transmitted orally for centuries.”
It seems that Jesus was familiar with many oral ideas, later written down. This oral tradition is analogous to apostolic oral tradition, referred to in the New Testament.


For example, Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount,
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment...” (Matthew 5:22, RSV).
In other words, his point was that sin starts in the heart and the intent, before we commit an act, and that the intent is as blameworthy as the act that flows from it.
Murder starts in anger, which then can become malice, up to and including murder, if it’s unchecked.

Is this an entirely new ethical insight of Jesus? No.

Many Jews would have been familiar with the oral tradition later written in the Talmud, in Bava Mezia 58b: “He who publicly shames his neighbor is as though he shed blood.”
Likewise, Jesus said shortly after the above,
“Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).
Again, arguably he drew from the continually developing oral Torah. A sentiment similar to this is found in Leviticus Rabba: “Adultery can be committed with the eyes.”




 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…