Disagreements between Catholics and Protestants

Joshua1Eight

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2021
Messages
155
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What are some of the most common disagreements between Catholics and Protestants? What side do you fall on? And why? And do you have scripture to back it up? If so, please share.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It depends a LOT of the Protestant....


.
 

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Protestants do not accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception.
 

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The virgin birth?!
No, I have never heard of the virgin birth being called immaculate conception in any Protestant church. I am talking about the Catholic Teaching that Mary was supposed to be born sinless or something like that.

Apparently a far more complicated teaching that I ever knew
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
What are some of the most common disagreements between Catholics and Protestants? What side do you fall on? And why? And do you have scripture to back it up? If so, please share.
As I understand, the main issue with Luther against the RCC was Free Will. This was the purpose of his book "The Bondage of the Will".


Luther said; Paul teaches, Rom. vii. and Gal. v., that there is in the saints, and in the godly, so powerful a warfare between the spirit and the flesh, that they cannot do what they would. From this warfare I argue thus:

If the nature of man be so evil, even in those who are born again of the Spirit, that it does not only not endeavour after good, but is even averse to, and militates against good, how should it endeavour after good in those who are not born again of the Spirit, and who are still in the "old man," and serve under Satan?

Also; "First, God has promised certainly His grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only. For if, as long as he has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing himself towards his own salvation, he retain a confidence in himself and do not utterly despair in himself, so long he is not humbled before God; but he proposes to himself some place, some time, or some work, whereby he may at length attain unto salvation. But he who hesitates not to depend wholly upon the good-will of God, he totally despairs in himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such an one, is the nearest unto grace, that he might be saved."

Martin Luther. The Bondage of the Will.



Calvinism said the same in another way. An excerpt from the Five Points of Calvinism says;

Total Depravity

Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature; therefore, he will not—indeed he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ—it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation—it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.

(Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 5:12, Psalm 51:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 6:44, Ephesians 2:1-10)
David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas Five Points of Calvinism
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,578
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No, I have never heard of the virgin birth being called immaculate conception in any Protestant church.
Many people confuse these two different doctrines and think that when the Immaculate Conception is mentioned, the meaning is that Jesus' own conception and birth were sinless. That's a mistake, but of course Jesus, being God in the flesh, indeed was sinless, so I can understand how some people make the mistake.

I agree with you in thinking that neither the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth are among the major areas of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, however.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What are some of the most common disagreements between Catholics and Protestants? What side do you fall on? And why? And do you have scripture to back it up? If so, please share.


@Joshua1Eight


1. As a former Catholic and one active at ecumenical sites like this for nearly 25 years, I think this topic is not a helpful one (especially when so general). We can of course discuss SPECIFIC doctrines and/or practices in Catholicism or "Protestantism" (which Protestant???) and that can be helpful IF the point is to better understand each other and where we differ. If done with mutual respect, this can be good. But wide open, very general discussions like this only serve to divide. Another problem: There is no such thing as "Protestant", there are several faith communities within Protestantism and each has quite a different relationship to Catholicism. Remember: there was more than one Reformation. At some points, Protestants may disagree with other Protestants more than they do with Catholics. Your discussion with the Lutherans here would be very different than with Free Will Baptists for example.


2. Again, as a former Catholic, I think the DIVIDING doctrines for Lutherans would be...
+ Doctrine of the Church
+ Epistemology
+ Justification/Sanctification (THE issue both the Catholic Church and Luther said was central to the disagreement)
We could discuss each of those.

There are other issues, probably not "deal breakers" such as Transubstantiation (rather than just Real Presence), Purgatory (as dogma as in the unique Catholic form), some Marian views (as dogma anyway, perhaps okay as "pious opinion"), and some others.


3. And, my brother, I had to laugh when I read your emphasis on what SCRIPTURE says. Friend, you just lost the whole debate, essentially by surrendering the epistemology to Protestants. Catholicism does NOT rest on Scripture alone (much less one's interpretation of such) BUT on "the three legged stool" of Scripture (as understood by CATHOLICISM), Tradition (AS defined by and understood by CATHOLICISM) and the Magisterium (the leadership of CATHOLICISM) - all 3 legs EQUAL and INTERDEPENDENT. Catholic apologetics DO and MUST insist on that, it entirely falls if it submits instead to a very, very radical form of Protestant epistemology as you did in the opening post. Since you are Catholic at an ecumenical site, brother, be careful. Folks are (mostly) nice here so you'll get away with it but....


And note: I'm a strong, conservative/confessional Lutheran. But I still use my Catholic Catechism (and probably agree with 95% of the 2,865 points in it); I'm strongly liturgical and Sacramental; I'm very pro-life, etc. Pretty much all my family is Catholic and I know of none who actually agree with Catholicism more than I do, odd as I realize that is.




Some threads:









Blessings!


- Josiah



.
 
Last edited:

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Many people confuse these two different doctrines and think that when the Immaculate Conception is mentioned, the meaning is that Jesus' own conception and birth were sinless. That's a mistake, but of course Jesus, being God in the flesh, indeed was sinless, so I can understand how some people make the mistake.

I agree with you in thinking that neither the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth are among the major areas of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, however.
Immaculate conception of Jesus--yes

Immaculate conception of Mary--no

But again, the term "immaculate conception" was never a part of my vocabulary or teachings that I recall from 35 years in the Lutheran Church. We just stated it clearly as the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,578
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
But again, the term "immaculate conception" was never a part of my vocabulary or teachings that I recall from 35 years in the Lutheran Church. We just stated it clearly as the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
That could be what people said, but the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the circumstances of Mary's birth, not Jesus's birth.

And the doctrine of the Virgin Birth doesn't refer to sin at all, being that it's a reference to the teaching that Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus without having had sexual relations with any man.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is accepted by Protestants since it is referred to in the exchange between Mary and the angel as recorded by the Bible. She initially says that she has known no man, so how can she be chosen to give birth to the Holy One (?), but Gabriel says that the power of the Holy Ghost will come upon her and make it possible.

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church later augmented this to include the idea that she would remain a virgin (somehow) after giving birth and through the rest of her life.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
One of the reasons they called it the Reformation, I believe, was that the RCC strayed into Free Will as the basis for salvation when the Council of Ephesus condemned it as heresy in 431. Luther and Calvin wanted to reform the church moving it back to these standards. Essentially, free will is the main component of Pelagianism condemned as heresy at Ephesus.
 
Last edited:

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,092
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What are some of the most common disagreements between Catholics and Protestants? What side do you fall on? And why? And do you have scripture to back it up? If so, please share.
It’s funny you should start a thread about this because I’m in the middle of an email thread about this with a priest. The differences between the beliefs of Catholics and Lutherans.
 

1689Dave

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2022
Messages
1,871
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I think the biggest difference is that the Reformers thought the Papacy is the Antichrist. Here's a sample of their writings.

Creeds named the papacy the Antichrist;

The first written history suggests Arnulf, the archbishop of Reims in the 10th century identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. Later Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century preached the Papacy was the Antichrist. This led to the martyrdom of many Albigenses, Anabaptists, and others who in part embraced his views. And archbishop Eberhard II 1240 also related the papacy to the Antichrist. Synopsis of the End Times; A look at the popular beliefs of today by Mike Morrill.

The Westminster Confession which also with some adjustments became the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions.

Chapter XXV

Of the Church

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.



And from the preface to the Canons of Dort;

For this Church being by God’s mighty hand set free from the tyranny of the Romish Antichrist, & from the fearful idolatry of Popery.....



Martin Luther declared, “We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist.” (Aug. 18, 1520). According to The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by LeRoy Froom. Vol. 2., pg. 121.



I shall briefly show that (Paul’s words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy.” According to Institutes of the Christian Religion, by John Calvin.

John Knox concluded that the Papacy was “the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks.” The Zurich Letters, by John Knox, pg. 199.



“Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons.” (Referring to prophecies in Revelation and Daniel.)

Works by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.



“the pretended Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2).

Roger Williams (1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America):” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.



Cotton Mather (1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian): “The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them.” According to The Fall of Babylon by Cotton Mather in Froom’s book, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 113.



John Wesley (1703-1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, “He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.” Antichrist and His Ten Kingdoms, by John Wesley, pg. 110.



A Great Cloud of Witnesses: “Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” According to All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It’s funny you should start a thread about this because I’m in the middle of an email thread about this with a priest. The differences between the beliefs of Catholics and Lutherans.

@Faith


See post #8.

I'd love to discuss this further with you.


.
 

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,092
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Faith


See post #8.

I'd love to discuss this further with you.


.
Discuss away…. But I guess I should mention that I’m probably going to leave the LCMS. I just can’t get past the same two issues that keep coming up. I’m probably going to start going to a ND again.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,578
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Discuss away…. But I guess I should mention that I’m probably going to leave the LCMS. I just can’t get past the same two issues that keep coming up. I’m probably going to start going to a ND again.
Hello, Faith. I'm sorry that this has caused you such stress, but on the other hand, I have to commend you on caring about sound doctrine. There are innumerable people who pick a church on the basis of something trivial and aren't concerned at all when it comes to a matter of doctrine. If what they believe--and intend to continue to believe--is at odds with what that church teaches, they aren't conscience-stricken in the least.

But getting back to the point of your message...I cannot remember for sure now what the two unresolved issues are. One, I think, is about the age of the Earth and the other was a Marian doctrine (?)

So here's another comment from someone who doesn't belong to either of those churches and therefore isn't pushing you to join his own denomination:

When it comes to the age of the Earth, most LCMS leaders do seem to stand by the 6 literal days of creation, I agree. However, I'd ask if the other church (RC) is free of all other issues that bother you--Papal Infallibility, for instance, or Purgatory, or something else?? I take it that you don't think so.

Unless you find nothing to object to when it comes to such beliefs that are much more significant than how to count the days of Creation, you wouldn't be resolving anything by switching back to the RCC. And the real issue with the 6 days is actually whether Scripture is inerrant or not. Lutherans want to uphold the concept of divine revelation being infallible, even when it seems confusing to our minds.

On the other issue--the Assumption of Mary, was it?--the fact is that no one knows where Mary was buried, so the idea of Mary being taken to heaven while alive or after death (The RC leaves that difference unresolved) is based on guesswork.

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture about it. The fact remains, however, that every good Catholic is required, under pain of mortal sin, to believe it. It was just a "pious opinion" until the 20th century, but it was then made mandatory.

I don't know what the priest you talked to said about it, but if you don't agree with this, you would be going back to the Catholic Church in defiance of its own demands. Staying with the LCMS might be less conflicting after all.

So now we come to the possibility of a non-denominational church. If you opt for a non-denominational church as a way out of this Catholic-Lutheran mess, you're almost certain to be siding with a congregation that's essentially Baptist in doctrine and worship. That's what most non-denoms--which DO have statements of belief and are not simply noncommittal on every doctrinal matter--amount to. At bottom, then, this means that these churches disagree with much that Lutherans and Catholics DO agree about, and which you are not questioning.
 
Last edited:

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
674
Age
54
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There are a lot of things I disagree with the Catholic church about. One of the difficulties in talking with Catholics is they sometimes use the same words but have different understandings about the meaning of words used.

There are to many disagreements to address in a single post.

The short answer is that I don't believe the Catholic is infallible. The church can and has made theological errors and accepted theological speculation and proclaimed that speculation/errors as dogma.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,762
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I just can’t get past the same two issues that keep coming up.

Thing is: Neither of those are issues in the LCMS. Neither are doctrines, neither are required views. And the LCMS stands on MANY things. I wonder about "leaving" over two non-issues while entirely ignoring SO many that you agree with.


I’m probably going to start going to a ND again.



"Non-denoms" tend fall into two groups:

1. Pure emotionalism and relativism. Whatever makes you feel good is good to them. "What is truth?" Doesn't matter. Feelings do.
2. They ARE some denomination they just won't admit it; they want to hide their theological views (which are typically Anabaptist or Pentecostal)



.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,758
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Discuss away…. But I guess I should mention that I’m probably going to leave the LCMS. I just can’t get past the same two issues that keep coming up. I’m probably going to start going to a ND again.

ND is Non-Denominational, right?

If that's the case, then you disagree with a ton more than just old earth, young earth arguments. By changing to non-denominational, you also disagree that baptism washes away sins, you disagree that the Lord is present in Holy Communion, you disagree that the Pastor stands in the stead of Christ for absolution.
 

Faith

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
1,092
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Hello, Faith. I'm sorry that this has caused you such stress, but on the other hand, I have to commend you on caring about sound doctrine. There are innumerable people who pick a church on the basis of something trivial and aren't concerned at all when it comes to a matter of doctrine. If what they believe--and intend to continue to believe--is at odds with what that church teaches, they aren't conscience-stricken in the least.

But getting back to the point of your message...I cannot remember for sure now what the two unresolved issues are. One, I think, is about the age of the Earth and the other was a Marian doctrine (?)

So here's another comment from someone who doesn't belong to either of those churches and therefore isn't pushing you to join his own denomination:

When it comes to the age of the Earth, most LCMS leaders do seem to stand by the 6 literal days of creation, I agree. However, I'd ask if the other church (RC) is free of all other issues that bother you--Papal Infallibility, for instance, or Purgatory, or something else?? I take it that you don't think so.

Unless you find nothing to object to when it comes to such beliefs that are much more significant than how to count the days of Creation, you wouldn't be resolving anything by switching back to the RCC. And the real issue with the 6 days is actually whether Scripture is inerrant or not. Lutherans want to uphold the concept of divine revelation being infallible, even when it seems confusing to our minds.

On the other issue--the Assumption of Mary, was it?--the fact is that no one knows where Mary was buried, so the idea of Mary being taken to heaven while alive or after death (The RC leaves that difference unresolved) is based on guesswork.

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture about it. The fact remains, however, that every good Catholic is required, under pain of mortal sin, to believe it. It was just a "pious opinion" until the 20th century, but it was then made mandatory.

I don't know what the priest you talked to said about it, but if you don't agree with this, you would be going back to the Catholic Church in defiance of its own demands. Staying with the LCMS might be less conflicting after all.

So now we come to the possibility of a non-denominational church. If you opt for a non-denominational church as a way out of this Catholic-Lutheran mess, you're almost certain to be siding with a congregation that's essentially Baptist in doctrine and worship. That's what most non-denoms--which DO have statements of belief and are not simply noncommittal on every doctrinal matter--amount to. At bottom, then, this means that these churches disagree with much that Lutherans and Catholics DO agree about, and which you are not questioning.
The two issues are the age of the earth and theistic evolution, which I believe in.
I was thinking about going back to the RCC but I just don’t like going to Mass, so I’m considering a ND church.
 
Top Bottom