Full disclosure: I was raised Catholic and no longer consider myself religious. My mom was raised Southern Baptist (converted about a decade ago) so I had the opportunity to attend both Mass and go to Baptist church every week as a kid. While my dad's family is Catholic, my mom's side is mostly Baptist.

Throughout childhood and even into high school, there seemed to be a disdain for the Catholic church from Protestants. I'd always hear snide comments about us such as "worshiping Mary," quips about Communion, etc. from my Mom's side of the family and a few friends - and it carried on throughout high school. The opinions themselves did not bother me, but one thing is absolutely clear from my experience: Protestants in general seem to look down upon the Catholic church, and from personal experience seem to despise it. Even more interesting is the reverse does not seem to be true - and if it is, is MUCH less of a big deal to Catholics.

Again, I'm a neutral and do not feel affiliated to one side or the other. In fact, I don't think there is a "side," only some nuances in interpreting certain aspects of how to best serve God, so the "hating" really seems unjustified in my mind. Would be curious to hear thoughts from the board.

Quote:

---

Protestants in general seem to look down upon the Catholic church, and from personal experience seem to despise it. Even more interesting is the reverse does not seem to be true - and if it is, is MUCH less of a big deal to Catholics.

---

I grew up in a strict fundamentalist bubble, and there was immense contempt for Catholicism. But, to be fair, there was immense contempt for anything non-fundamentalist, so much so that they even believed that if you were "saved" with anything but the KJV, then you were never really "saved".

That said, around here I think the bulk of the anti-Catholic sentiment comes from a few select posters who are militantly Protestant. I think the vast majority here are not remotely anti-Catholic. I think the same applies from the other side. I've seen several Catholic posters who clearly have an equal amount of contempt for Protestants and talk derisively of Protestantism, but I think the vast majority of Catholic posters are not like that.

I am Lutheran and never really grew up with any animosity towards the Catholic church. I think it mostly comes from a lack of understanding (ie worshiping Mary).

Yeah, I think a lack of understanding is the real root of the issue. I also think it's probably flawed to view this as a Protestant issue, in general. It's probably better to look at specific Protestant denominations, because I'm sure the views of Lutherans and Baptists are far different from each other in this regard.

Quote:

---

Protestants in general seem to look down upon the Catholic church, and from personal experience seem to despise it. Even more interesting is the reverse does not seem to be true - and if it is, is MUCH less of a big deal to Catholics.

---

This was my general experience as well. I didn't notice it much at all through high school, but Protestant contempt was definitely a thing when I got to A&M. My experience was specifically with the Church of Christ in College Station.

powerbelly said:

---

I am Lutheran and never really grew up with any animosity towards the Catholic church. I think it mostly comes from a lack of understanding (ie worshiping Mary).

---

Growing up in Central Texas (strong Germanic communities), Lutherans and Catholics got along just fine. Marriages between the two were very common. My grandmother was Lutheran and my grandfather Catholic.

We're super jelly of their priests outfits.

In all seriousness, if you hang around here long enough you'll see people being *****s on both sides.

No animosity toward them. I just don't do well with a hierarchical ecclesiastical structure where the leaders are overtly political. My church is full of such critters in the clergy.

growing up in the church of christ, there were even extremists who doubted the salvation of other types of protestants. Catholics might as well have been scientologists or something as far as they were concerned. I wasn't actually taught that, but we were more or less led to believe that catholicism was so lousy with man-made, non-scriptural inventions as to be irredeemable. But I think that sort of view is where you inevitably end up when you really take sola scriptura to its logical conclusion.

Fundamentalism is just the absolute worst.

Quote:

---

Fundamentalism is just the absolute worst.

---

Agreed. I still wrestle w/ the scars that come from being in that world.

I think it's because the basic fundamental identity philosophy for Americans is egalitarianism, expressed in radical individualism. We even see this in evangelicals saying Jesus is a personal savior, even the faith needs to be about the individual.

Roman Catholicism and truly ancient Christianity is not compatible with this, it is both expressly hierarchical and radically communal. Everything about the Church, from the charisma of ordination to the presence of the Holy Spirit to even the identity of the Church itself is related to multiple believers unified in Christ.

The modern view of the church by way of contrast is not a single community or a plurality of single communities which are one in quality by virtue of connection to Christ but instead a summation of individuals which as individuals constitute the whole.

The two basic approaches are, on some level, completely incompatible. There will always been any tension or friction there, even if it is unspoken or even not understood or overt.

I've had the opposite experience. Catholics believe they are the one true church with the pope as its head. Deny that and you are anathema. It is in their catechism that those outside of it cannot be saved.

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

growing up in the church of christ, there were even extremists who doubted the salvation of other types of protestants. Catholics might as well have been scientologists or something as far as they were concerned. I wasn't actually taught that, but we were more or less led to believe that catholicism was so lousy with man-made, non-scriptural inventions as to be irredeemable. But I think that sort of view is where you inevitably end up when you really take sola scriptura to its logical conclusion.

Fundamentalism is just the absolute worst.

---

We used to go on "mission trips" to save catholic souls in Mexico. Of course it was really just an excuse to go on a vacation with friends and site see with a tiny bit of building something or helping somebody so we could feel pious.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think it's because the basic fundamental identity philosophy for Americans is egalitarianism, expressed in radical individualism. We even see this in evangelicals saying Jesus is a personal savior, even the faith needs to be about the individual.

Roman Catholicism and truly ancient Christianity is not compatible with this, it is both expressly hierarchical and radically communal. Everything about the Church, from the charisma of ordination to the presence of the Holy Spirit to even the identity of the Church itself is related to multiple believers unified in Christ.

The modern view of the church by way of contrast is not a single community or a plurality of single communities which are one in quality by virtue of connection to Christ but instead a summation of individuals which as individuals constitute the whole.

The two basic approaches are, on some level, completely incompatible. There will always been any tension or friction there, even if it is unspoken or even not understood or overt.

---

This is absolutely a key point. As usual k2aggie07 is on the mark. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church and unifomity is expressly at odds with the concept of rugged American individualism. I too grew up in a fundamentalist CofC (no longer attend). My wife is Catholic. Although I now longer feel that my Catholic brothers and sisters are "lost" (thanks mom) I can never bring myself to convert to Catholicism, much less enjoy the few times I get pressured into attending mass. The "take it or leave" theme with the Catholic faith just doesn't resonate with my core make-up (e.g. I should be free to make my own decisions regarding my faith and beliefs).

Thanks k2 for all you bring to this board. Hopefully we can all get along in the end and drink more beer.

As a Catholic, it chaps me to hear Protestants and others claim Catholics arent Christian, or removed parts from the Bible, or dont understand Christianity.

Furthermore, from the traditionalist Catholic perspective, there is an argument put forth by Pope Benedict before he was Pope Benedict, that the Protestant Church does not exist as a Church, within the body of Christ due to its lack of Apostolicity and by extension lack of a valid Priesthood.

I like beer. My folks visited Alabama and brought me back a ton of Yuengling for my birthday so I am happy right now.

But no I won't share. I will buy Shiner for y'all.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I've had the opposite experience. Catholics believe they are the one true church with the pope as its head. Deny that and you are anathema. It is in their catechism that those outside of it cannot be saved.

---

I believe prior to Vatican 2, you are right that the catechism said that (this included the Eastern Orthodox) as well.

However, the catechism was changed to say that all can see and understand part of God, however the "Fullness of Faith" is only found in Rome.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I like beer. My folks visited Alabama and brought me back a ton of Yuengling for my birthday so I am happy right now.

But no I won't share. I will buy Shiner for y'all.

---

Shiner?

I thought you said you liked us

There is no salvation outside of the Church is no different than saying there is no salvation apart from Christ.

It doesn't dent sovereignty or divine economy.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I've had the opposite experience. Catholics believe they are the one true church with the pope as its head. Deny that and you are anathema. It is in their catechism that those outside of it cannot be saved.

---

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-no-salvation-outside-the-church-include-non-catholic-christians

Somebody needs to brush up on their Catechism. Perfect example of how to incite hatred for Catholics via misinformation.

k2aggie07 said:

---

There is no salvation outside of the Church is no different than saying there is no salvation apart from Christ.

It doesn't dent sovereignty or divine economy.

---

All I was pointing out was that prior to Vatican 2, the "Church" was Rome and no other.

Their new stance is the weirder version where there's a wider "Church" that everyone is part of and so salvation is possible, however the Roman Church proper is the Full Church.

It is an anathema to deny the church and it is an anathema to deny the infallibility of the pope. He's perfectly correct.

Yeah that's just ecumenical silliness. There is only one Church and it is the Eucharistic assembly of Christ. The people with the bishop.

Kool said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I've had the opposite experience. Catholics believe they are the one true church with the pope as its head. Deny that and you are anathema. It is in their catechism that those outside of it cannot be saved.

---

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-no-salvation-outside-the-church-include-non-catholic-christians

Somebody needs to brush up on their Catechism. Perfect example of how to incite hatred for Catholics via misinformation.

---

It's not misinformation though. The problem has been Rome changing its stance.

From "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" by Fr. Damick (This is all one section, but two pages on my kindle):

Quote:

---

The answer is unfortunately confusing, because Rome has changed its position on this question over the years. In the fourteenth century, we see this very strong language: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Papal bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII). Clearly, anyone not submitting to Rome is damned. This same language is used in the sixteenth century: "It is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff" (Fifth Lateran Council, 1516).

Damick, Andrew Stephen. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: : Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape (Kindle Locations 1547-1556). Ancient Faith Publishing. Kindle Edition.

---

Quote:

---

Yet early twentieth-century Catholic theologians, while criticizing the Orthodox in strong terms, saw Rome's relationship with the East as an actual division within Christendom, not as the East having left the Church and forfeited salvation:

It is not Latins, it is they [i.e., the Orthodox] who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one's steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Eastern schism," 1913)

By the time of the Second Vatican Council, Rome explicitly taught that non-Catholics have the possibility to be saved:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their consciencethose too may achieve eternal salvation. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 1965)

Therefore, while Orthodox Christians in the fourteenth century would be told by Rome that they were damned, they can now be covered by the "ignorance clause" of the language of the Second Vatican Council. Even apart from the question of which of these papal statements should be deemed infallible, such a shift leads one to wonder if Rome will change its stance in the future.

Damick, Andrew Stephen. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: : Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape (Kindle Locations 1556-1571). Ancient Faith Publishing. Kindle Edition.

---

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is infallible.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility
And the Catholic Church does allow for disagreement from its followers. There is absolutely room for dissent.

http://www.liguorian.org/files/10_30_14_DisagreeChurch%20Teach_Textpdf.pdf

At the end of the day, though, if you don't establish a creed, how can you really have followers? This is NOT to say that Catholics, myself included, don't appreciate that there can be too much authoritarianism in a hierarchical body.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yeah that's just ecumenical silliness. There is only one Church and it is the Eucharistic assembly of Christ. The people with the bishop.

---

No bishop no Church, correct?

Quote:

---

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

---

Sorry bud. That's y'alls words, not mine.

Yes. No bishop no church. No Eucharist no church. No laity no church.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

---

Sorry bud. That's y'alls words, not mine.

---

Here is my thing. I think theyre wrong. I think the Church can be wrong on their infallibility and still be a legitimate apostolic church, one that has just exceeded their authority.

I've definitely been treated poorly by Catholics for not being one. Pretty much their opinion was it is their way or the highway.
I've been to a few Catholic services and felt not welcome. I'm not allowed to recieve communion or blessings. I don't know any of the saints. My Baptism doesn't count. The Bible is different. I didn't know when to stand sit or kneel. It might be as simple as not wanting to hang out with people who keep telling you that you are wrong. If any of the above is incorrect, please correct me but it was the impression I had.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yes. No bishop no church. No Eucharist no church. No laity no church.

---

Thats my whole point, the Protestant church doesnt exist. The church is the body of Christ. Protestants are not Christians by that definition.

Quad Dog said:

---

I've definitely been treated poorly by Catholics for not being one. Pretty much their opinion was it is their way or the highway.
I've been to a few Catholic services and felt not welcome. I'm not allowed to recieve communion or blessings. I don't know any of the saints. My Baptism doesn't count. The Bible is different. I didn't know when to stand sit or kneel. It might be as simple as not wanting to hang out with people who keep telling you that you are wrong. If any of the above is incorrect, please correct me but it was the impression I had.

---

Your baptism should couldnt unless it was in the unitarian form

I think they're wrong too. But if they're wrong, they were wrong in council and in a formal declaration of a doctrine that literally excommunicated the entirety of Christendom other than the Roman Church. It's kind of a big deal.

If you reject that definition you are under an anathema and, upon confessing that, it is likely you would not be given the Eucharist. Or at least you shouldn't be under the terms of that statement. That is the whole purpose of an anathema.

You have to be careful. The Eucharistic assembly, the ekklesia, is well defined. The common vernacular church has morphed in meaning. You'll only offend people or confuse them saying that.