Early Church Does Not Look Like Protestantism

 Scott Hahn posted to Facebook:

In the first three hundred years of the Church, in addition to belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation, the extant documents reveal widespread belief in:

(1) The Real presence of Christ (Body and Blood) in the Eucharist

(2) The Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant

(3) Baptismal regeneration

(4) Apostolic succession

(5) The necessity to maintain the Unity of the Church

(6) Necessity of Bishops for a valid Eucharist.

(7) Prayers for the Dead

(8) Relics

(9) The formal designation of Catholic for the One Church

(10) Demonstrations of papal primacy.

(11) Sign of the cross at prayers

(12) Examples of prayers to the saints.

Whatever this early church was, it wasn't Protestant. This was St John Henry Newman's point: there is no meaningful way to deep dive into the history of the Church and come away with it as having any semblance of Protestant faith and practice. Catholicism, on the other hand, can walk backward through history and arrive at the pre-Constantinian church and find substantive continuity.

The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325) is pictured below.

 

To which: Myles Ephraim Natale wrote:

Wow a picture of the first Council of Nicaea with the Pope in the middle yet the Pope wasn’t there. More Latin fairy tale.

 

To which I respond:

Wow! Such a diversionary tactic! Myles' comment does not address a single point that Dr. Hahn posted! It is also my understanding that yes, the Pope was not there, he was in Rome - and sent a delegate who is likely the person pictured in the middle. I'm not sure why Myles believes that person to be the Pope, all the other bishops there are pictured in virtually the same attire. Back to the point Dr. Hahn made: "St John Henry Newman's point: there is no meaningful way to deep dive into the history of the Church and come away with it as having any semblance of Protestant faith and practice." How about dealing with the topic at hand instead of inventing an off-topic response to divert attention from Dr. Hahn's point?

 

 

 

 

More Catholics in Germany than Protestants

In a recent PEW survey conducted in Germany, Catholics now outnumber Protestants. At first this sounds like great news to Catholics – in the nation which was, for all intents and purposes, the birthplace of Protestantism, Catholicism is bigger than all forms of Protestantism (Lutherans, Baptists, etc.). Upon closer reflection both Protestants and Catholics have really gone down in the percentage they hold in Germany and those who claim to be not religious has grown, taking some from the other two groups (Evans, 2019). Protestants have lost more ground than Catholics - but both have lost ground to those who claim to have no religious affiliation - and also according to church attendance roles.

Catholics only hold a slight edge on Protestants, but the bigger story here is how many both have lost. Religion is losing out to non-religion, not to mention the growth of Islam in Europe too, which is also taking its toll on Christian church attendance. 

No doubt, the sex scandals of recent years/decades has coloured the eyes of many who have left the Church over these. Part of our mission is to educate them and bring them home. Just because there were some bad men IN the Church does not make the Church herself to be bad. 

Outside the Catholic Church there is no valid Eucharist. Outside the a valid apostolic succession of bishops - there is no forgiveness of sins (John 20:21-23). Jesus sent out His apostles to do what He did, celebrate Eucharist being right at the top of the list. Then breathing on them, He tells them whose sins YOU forgive, are forgiven and whose sins you do not forgive (retain) are not forgiven.

This is a call, not just for Germany's former Catholics and Protestants, but to the same throughout the world!  

References

Evans, J. (2019). Once a majority, Protestants now account for fewer than a third of Germans. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/12/once-a-majority-protestants-now-account-for-fewer-than-a-third-of-germans/

Why Stay Protestant?

That's a GREAT question!  This article is in response to Matthew Schultz' article which asks the same question.  His article (which I will interject my responses to below) can be found at: https://medium.com/@MatthewSchultz/why-stay-protestant-435b5e1006a0 (you have to join medium.com to read there, but I have his whole article here in my response).

Schultz is a Protestant who has (so far) remained one. I am a former Protestant who is now a Catholic, so let's see if I can answer his question(s) and objection(s).

Why Stay Protestant?
Over the years, I’ve had several Catholic friends and converts ask why I ultimately didn’t convert to their denomination. During my first two years of college, I spent a significant amount of time with Catholics, including at the (then?) US Opus Dei headquarters in NYC. I attended these gatherings with a good friend, who eventually decided to convert from Evangelicalism. I came close to converting, but ultimately decided against it. This has surprised some Catholics. I suspect this is because the standard narrative is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are crossing the Tiber in great droves.

Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years, Catholicism has lost millions of adherents, most of these converting to a kind of nonreligious spiritualism/secularism or to Protestantism, while millions more Protestants remain Protestant. For every one person who converts to Catholicism, about six leave leave the church.

Still, the notion that Catholicism is attracting large numbers of Protestant converts, with no movement in the other direction, can create the impression that there is something irresistible about Catholicism to anyone who studies it. My reasons for remaining Protestant haven’t changed a great deal, although they have become more refined, especially since seminary. I would like to share some of them here.

I, for one Catholic, am not surprised by the numbers Schultz refers to (without references, I might add). I would also point out WHY you STAY or LEAVE should not be based upon a numbers game - you STAY or LEAVE because you've found and/or are seeking the ultimate TRUTH. 

Whenever I read Catholic apologists, I’m fascinated by the near-total absence of robust exegetical arguments. Most attempts to turn the discussion to Biblical passages result in either a denial that my “private interpretation” is reliable — thus shutting down an exegetical debate before it begins — or lay interpretations shared, as far as I can tell, by virtually no Biblical scholars who study these passages.

Again, Schultz leans on a numbers game - just because HE can't find very many biblical scholars who study these passages. He says "virtually no..." which implies he has found SOME. I would posit that if you find even ONE which proclaims the TRUTH - you have found enough. Don't play numbers games with the TRUTH, especially where your eternal soul, and that of others, weighs in the balance. I would venture to guess here too that Schultz may not be considering Catholic biblical scholars as scholars - but hard to tell, he doesn't give us any specific examples to deal with here. In short, that which Schultz is complaining about Catholic apologists - he's doing here!  No substance, nothing we can answer to - just vague comments. 

On the first measure — that I cannot interpret the Bible, so any defense of Protestantism I offer is just my own, unreliable judgment — epistemological objections to interpreting the New Testament strike me as self-defeating. God asks us to interpret him every time he communicates with us. How can we understand him if we don’t engage in interpretation? Or how does someone come to understand that their “private” interpretations are wrong unless they first interpret the speech that tells them so?

I really have no problem with this level of private interpretation - yes - ALL words, written or oral, require some level of decoding/interpretation. I have had this argument used on me by Protestant apologists stating private interpretation is necessary. The real point here is that while every word we hear or read has some level of decoding/interpretation by the brain - fundamentally we do not need to re-interpret statements like "the door is red," but there is some interpretation behind, "I am the Door" (John 10:9) since we know that Jesus is not like a door which is red with a knob and hinges, He still is the point of entry into Heaven. While Jesus doesn't have the appearance of a door, He literally IS the Door (some translate this as "gate") to Heaven - and that is the point of the context of that passage. In reality, the argument of "unless you first interpret the speech" is just a diversionary tactic to get one into a side discussion of interpretation rather than the contextual meaning of the text.

Since I don’t have a problem with issuing “private judgment,” here are some exegetical reasons I remain Protestant. Off the top of my head:

 1. Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible.

"Broadly" speaking, one can find the Arian notions taught in the Bible too.

2. Pauline church government is authoritarian in some respects but is a distant cousin to the modern Magisterium.

The modern Magisterium is clearly begun in biblical teachings. Clearly bishops are mentioned in many places in the New Testament and clearly St. Peter was left to "Feed My sheep" (a command repeated three times by Jesus in John 21:15-17) and at the first Church Council at Jerusalem, which was hosted by St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the decisive word was given by St. Peter (Simon) in Acts 15:14ff. We also see that when St. Paul had a question, he went back to the other Apostles, and again this Council at Jerusalem is a prime example of that.

3. NT (and OT) ethics support the implementation of the death penalty in ways that are alien to (Pope) Francis’s ethical statements and implications.

Pope Francis' views on the death penalty represent his own, personal opinions as a theologian but are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. This is not really a very good reason to not become a Catholic. 

4. Contra the post-Vatican II ethos, Christ and Paul are utterly unsympathetic to salvation for those who refuse to submit directly and openly to Christ and his Gospel.

There are many in Traditional Catholic movements which share this sentiment. However, the fundamental teaching in Catholicism remains unchanged, so again, not a very good reason for not becoming a Catholic.

5. Biblical unity is defined by adherence to core doctrine. Organizational fealty is never primary in the NT’s exposition of authority and unity.

Oh? Jesus expressly states His desire that His Body (the Church) be one body, one fold under one shepherd. John 10:16, John 11:52, John 17:21-23, 1 Cor. 12:12, Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, Eph. 2:16, Eph. 4:4, Eph. 4:13, Col. 3:14-15, and Gal 3:28 to name many of the Bible verses which teach we are to be one. We also have the creeds of early Christendom, still professed in all Catholic Churches AND in many Protestant churches as well where the "Four Marks of the Catholic Church" are confessed - three of which do not apply to Protestantism at all! Those Four Marks are: "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." Protestantism is not one, it is fractured into literally thousands of sects and denominations; it is not catholic, which relates to the one, for it is not universal; it is not apostolic for there is no direct apostolic link/succession, at least not a valid one, for any Protestant sect. You're left with "holy," and I've heard good arguments against that as well - but for the sake of this posting, let's grant "holy." So, while still professing these Four Marks, at best they can claim one of them.

6. Related: when I read the church fathers, I don’t think many of them would recognize some of the core beliefs of modern Catholicism.

But again, no examples! I posit that the "core beliefs" of Catholicism have not changed. So, without examples not much more can be said here.

I think there are creative, (probably) internally consistent ways for Catholics to overcome these exegetical concerns and remain faithful Catholics. 

I haven't yet really seen any "exegetical concerns!"

Maybe reading Cardinal Newman allows converts some measure of intellectual peace when comparing the first three centuries of the early church’s views on, say, ecumenicism and what is taught by the modern Magisterium. Development is a powerful notion that can erase apparent or actual contradictions. But as a Protestant, I see no reason to appeal to something like Newman’s sense of doctrinal development, and so what is claimed as development really looks, from the outside, like a set of socially and politically conditioned deviations and contradictions from the earlier deposit of faith.

I have to wonder, when Schultz states he sees no reason, "as a Protestant" to appeal to something like Newman's sense of doctrinal development, is that because he, "as a Protestant" just accepts the doctrinal development of the first 1500 years of the Church prior to the uprising of Protestantism in the 16th century? Here again, no examples.

Perhaps my greatest reasons for staying Protestant are practical. The refrain of lay Catholic apologists is that Protestants must submit to the Magisterium. Yet if the primary lens of theological inquiry is authority, why is so much of the heavy lifting done by Catholic laypersons? In the time I spent considering conversion to Catholicism, every single apologetics book, essay or article recommended to me was written by a lay Catholic. Why aren’t the bishops engaged in apologetics? Aren’t they the authoritative teachers within Catholicism? If so, why would I trust the exegetical, theological, and philosophical arguments put forth by lay Catholics who have no direct oversight or approval of bishops? To trust these arguments would be to trade one set of private interpretations for another.

Might I suggest: Archbishop Fulton Sheen?  How about Bishop Barron? The fact of the matter is we are ALL called to answer for the hope which is within us (1 Peter 3:15) this is not something reserved to bishops, but indeed, bishops are engaged in apologetics too.

This is downstream of another problem. As a Protestant, I have two basic options when informing my study of the Bible. The first is consulting scholars who think the text is inspired and more or less inerrant. This comes with arguments or assumptions about the nature and quality of the Bible’s authorship: Matthew really did write Matthew, the disciples’s memory of Jesus’s teachings is entirely or almost entirely accurate, Jesus really did make accurate prophecies, he really did miracles as described, and so forth.

The other option is consulting scholars who doubt or actively disbelieve all of the above propositions. They approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion. They doubt Matthew wrote Matthew. They doubt Jesus said and taught everything ascribed to him. Many claim that Jesus’s teachings were issued as a fallible man: given perhaps as a (mostly) good man, but certainly not as a divinely inspired God-man.

When it comes to Catholicism, most or all of the NT Catholic scholars I’m aware of fall somewhere in the second camp. Why would I follow a denomination that approves of or passes over scholars within its own ranks that seem to deny or doubt the reliability and authority of the Bible on such a regular basis? Consider, for example, how the NAB and the USCCB hedge on Pauline authorship. If Paul didn’t author some of the letters purported to be his, that raises questions about their inspiration and, therefore, divine authority.

Again, no examples. I can assume Schultz refers to dissidents like "Fr." Matthew Fox, or the ultra liberals like Fr. Raymond Brown. Yes, I am aware of some fringe "Catholics" or some who still claim to be "Catholic" but when we look at what they teach and compare to what was always taught - we find these novel concepts to be lacking and even heretical at times. Like I said, I'm aware of a select few - but the majority of Catholic theologians I know of do NOT "fall somewhere in the second camp." How about some examples? Or, does Mr. Schultz refer to these two examples I have provided?

If the intellectual leaders of Catholicism have a fairly low view of Scripture, that directly undermines the lay Catholic apologists who appeal to the Bible as if it actually teaches what Jesus and Paul really said. Who am I to believe? The Catholic scholar who questions whether half the Pauline corpus was really written by Paul or the lay Catholic apologist who argues assuming traditional authorship? If I take Catholicism at face value, then I would have to believe the intellectual over the lay apologist. And that would mean there’s no reason to take the lay apologists seriously if their arguments appeal to suspect passages written by someone pretending to be Jesus or Paul.

I say, stop making excuses based upon fringe "Catholic" arguments. If you want to focus on these sorts of arguments I can only say that you're looking for excuses and not seeking the TRUTH.

In my experience, lay Catholic converts and apologists aren’t even aware of these scholarly issues, even though they ultimately undermine their Biblical arguments for Catholicism.

As I said, I am aware of these pseudo-arguments - and I we're really not that far apart on our opinions of them. I am a lay Catholic convert and an apologist, so Mr. Schultz cannot honestly continue to make that claim. (grin)

It would be easy for a seminarian to fault them for this. But I am less critical: virtually no one converts for purely intellectual reasons. As an outsider looking in, I think the great draw of Catholicism is social stability in an increasingly anti-religious culture. It’s certainly what attracted me — far more than any particular intellectual idea.

Well, that certainly is A reason to be attracted - but there are so many other reasons! I mentioned earlier the "Four Marks of the Catholic Church," so there are four more excellent reasons. Another big one is Jesus' command in John 6:53 that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us. Many of His disciples who had been following him could not handle that teaching, and they "turned and walked with Him no more" (John 6:66). Do you also have trouble with this teaching? Do you also refuse to follow the Truth because this statement is too difficult to accept? Jesus, without changing the statement in the least, without stating that was a figurative parable turns and challenges His Apostles, "Will you also leave?" (John 6:67) To which the leader of the Apostles responds, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). Certainly, on face value, this IS a hard teaching, but to those who have True Faith, we find that Jesus Christ provides the means. Later, on the night in which He was betrayed, He took bread and declared in no uncertain terms, "This IS My body" and similarly He took wine and also declared, "This IS My blood" (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; and also 1 Cor 11:23-26). This is why Catholics, and very few others, believe that the bread and wine actually become His body and blood when they are consecrated by Christ through one of His valid priests. While still maintaining the appearance of bread and wine, the substance is miraculously changed into His flesh and blood, just as He declares it to be. Historically speaking, there are many Eucharistic Miracles (several linked here) which testify to this Real Presence. I would be more than willing to discuss these further.

In terms of social desirability, Catholicism offers several important features that are often (but not always!) lacking in Protestant circles:

1. a deep sense of historical continuity
2. a sense of personal contribution to or cooperation with salvation
3. a robust and prestigious intellectual tradition, especially when it comes to social and political theory
4. intellectual and spiritual assurance that troubling theological issues will ultimately be resolved by God-approved authorities
5. spiritual and theological comity with the world’s second largest denomination (Eastern Orthodoxy)
6. a strong, aesthetically pleasing liturgy
7. a faith that spans most major culture groups
8. opportunities to regularly and confidentially confess personal sin

Furthermore, in the American context, any form of Protestantism that takes the Bible “literally,” is basically despised. In all the important circles, there is enormous social pressure to hide one’s identity as a bigoted, backwards, intellectually inferior, uneducated, and politically conservative Evangelical Protestant.

If you’re a Protestant who attends a church that lacks unity, gives almost no opportunity for confession, and is devoid of intellectual and artistic communities, yet you still believe in God and are looking for a unified force to push back against the secular world that doesn’t have “Evangelical” cultural baggage, you will find Catholicism very attractive.

I think it’s true that you can find the above features in many non-Catholic, even non-Christian, communities. These aren’t intellectual clinchers; the fact that American Catholicism enjoys them more than many Protestant churches is historically conditioned. Yet social appeal isn’t undermined by intellectual persuasion. The best arguments can do is prepare someone to persevere in their current religious circumstances or give them permission to leave for something else. Movement from one to the other is an act of the will.

To all this I must respond with the fact that one should NOT follow a given religious movement based upon social acceptance. If this were a good reason, NO ONE would have come to the Church in the first 300 years of her existence - or very few anyway - because Christianity was socially unacceptable and even mandated against during this period. We are even seeing a growth in this religious intolerance in modern times, not to the extreme of the Romans... yet, but it is there and growing. Again, one should not follow any given religion based solely on cultural acceptance - but one should continue to seek the Truth, the Ultimate Truth, the Whole Truth and not be satisfied with a mere portion of the Truth. I freely and openly admit that there IS truth among Protestant religions. It was through my Lutheran upbringing that I fell in love with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ - but there was something missing, there was not the fullness of the Truth in Lutheranism. When I realized this, I could not remain in a group which just came close - I had to move to where the Fullness of Truth is taught and believed.  

I say all this because, as far as the social reasons to convert, I am fairly happy in the Presbyterian Church in America. I have found many of the above features in this community. That insulates me from their expressions in other religious (and non-religious) organizations.

For both intellectual and social reasons, I am comfortable remaining Protestant. The obstacles to conversion are just too great. As I used to hear in New England: “You can’t get there from here.”

Well, there is truth in that statement too! "You can't get there (to the fullness of Truth) from here (the Presbyterian Church in America)" because the PCA does not have the fullness of the Truth. Yes, they have truth - in part - but not the fullness of Truth. I did not move to the Catholic Church because it was comfortable, in fact, I am the only one in my family (so far!) who has made this move (though I did have an aunt who converted for a time, but slipped back into Protestantism - and on her deathbed there was a desire expressed for her to see a priest, but her Protestant husband refused to allow that). The point is, this was not a comfortable decision for me to make. I agree with Mr. Schultz too, this decision is an act of the will and I urge him not to "settle" with what he's that found allows him to be "fairly happy," but to continue to challenge himself and seek the Fullness of the Faith, the Fullness of Truth - which can only be found in the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded and built nearly 2000 years ago. It will not be an easy decision to make, to come out of the PCA to go to Catholicism, as I'm sure he has many friends and family there who will shun him if and when he does - but such temporal comforts are wholly outweighed by eternal grace.

I must say, I do appreciate Schutlz' candidness and even openness, and I hope this leads to a deeper discussion.

May God continue to guide you to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.   
AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

They Were Warned

It must be recognized that the errors of Luther began before he nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the Catholic Church in Wittenberg, but it is that date, October 31, 1517 which is remembered by Protestants as the birth of Protestantism.

The Lord, our God desires that we be one, just as He and the Father are One. Luther's act set into motion a schism which continues to divide the Church to this day - AGAINST the Will of God!

John 17:22 - Jesus said: "And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one."

Ten Areas of Deceptions of Catholics Part III

I've already dealt with three of the "Ten Areas of Deception" in my previous two posts:

Part I,

[1] Roman Catholics are dangerously taught that they were born again at infant baptism.

[2] Roman Catholics dangerously think they receive Christ when they partake of the communion wafer.

I debunked both of these as "deceptions" in Part I. We, Catholics, do believe that we are born again at baptism, because that is what it implies, if not outright says so, in Scripture. And, yes, we believe that we receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist, because that is what Jesus Christ did say directly.

and Part II.

[3]  Roman Catholics wrongly think their church system was founded by Jesus on Peter the first pope.

Yes, we do believe that the Church was founded by Jesus on Peter, the Rock. We believe it because Jesus Christ said it. The post got long so I left it with debunking this, too, as a "deception." Both Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church prove this belief to be true and not a deception.

The next two "deadly deceptions" have to do with Mary so I thought I'd do them in one post. First:

[4] Catholics think Mary is their life, sweetness, and hope and promote her as such when they recite the rosary, which they say is the epitome of the whole gospel.

Let me talk about this so-called "deception" before I go onto his side arguments under this one.
I'm not sure how many times a Catholic can reiterate that Mary has no super power of her own and that Catholic Church does not teach that she does, and have a Protestant believe it.
Mary is our life because the Father chose her to carry the Life of the World--His Son Jesus Christ.
Mary is our sweetness because the Father chose her to carry the Sweetness of the World--His Son, Jesus Christ.
Mary is our hope because the Father chose her to carry the hope of the world--His Son, Jesus Christ.
We love Mary and honor her because she is GOD's Mother. If you believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, why do you not honor Mary His mother? Honoring Mary does not diminish our worship of her Son, Jesus Christ; it actually enhances out love of Him by loving and honoring His mother.  After all, her "soul magnified the Lord." (Luke 1:46)

As for the Rosary, it is the epitome of the Gospel. It is the definition ("a perfect example: an example represents or expresses something very well"--Merriam-Webster.com) of an epitome of the Gospel. I would venture to guess that the anonymous author has no idea what the Rosary is or what it is made up of. The Rosary is a series of prayers, yes, but it also contains meditations, things that you are to meditate on during your prayers. The 20 meditations (meditated on during each decade-ten beads-of the Rosary) are as follows:

The Joyful Mysteries:
1) The Annunciation: Luke 1:35-38
2) The Visitation; Luke 1:41-42
3) The Nativity (The birth of Jesus Christ); Luke 2:6-7
4) The Presentation; Luke 2:25-40
5) The Finding of Jesus in the Temple; Luke 2:46-47
Thus you will have complete a complete round of the Rosary beads and prayed the story of Jesus and Mary in the Gospel of Luke. Last time I heard Luke's book was considered a Gospel.
Next are the Luminous Mysteries (added to the traditional Rosary by Saint John Paul II)
1) The Baptism of Jesus; Mark 1:9-11
2) The Miracle at the Wedding Feast at Cana; John 2:5-8
3) The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God; Mark 1:15
4) The Transfiguration; Matthew 17:2-5
5) The Institution of the Eucharist; Matthew 26:26-28
Here is another complete round of the Rosary beads. Matthew, Mark, and John also being authors of books called Gospel.

Which brings us to the Sorrowful Mysteries:
1) The Agony in the Garden; Mark 14:33-36
2) The Scourging at the pillar; John 19:1
3) The Crowning with Thorns; Mark 15:17
4) Carrying of the Cross; Luke 23: 27-28
5) The Crucifixion; John 19:33-35
And, next the Glorious Mysteries:
1) The Resurrection; John 20:1
2) The Ascension; Acts 1:7-9
3) The Descent of the Holy Spirit; Acts 2:2-4
4) The Assumption of Mary; Luke 1:30
5) The Coronation of Mary, Queen of Heaven; Revelation 12:1
You can find, online, several places where you can pray a "scriptural Rosary", where there is a Scripture passage for each of the ten beads of each meditation. There is one here, or here, or even this one. The Meditations of the Rosary are very Scriptural and definitely are the "epitome", an excellent example, of the Gospel.

As for Protestant objections to praying to Mary in this way, I would like to reiterate that we actually ask Mary to pray for us. All our prayers are directed straight to Jesus. This is the very same thing we do when we ask a friend, a minister, or a family member to pray for us to God. The difference is that we know that Mary is beside her Son, and has His ear. What mother doesn't have some influence over her son?

"...she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God...it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."  --Martin Luther; Sermon on John 14:16

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." --Martin Luther; Commentary on the Magnificat. Source.

Even the father of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, disagrees with the author of this post. Under this "deception" he made this comment (yes, I skipped a little of his comments that were redundant).

Catholicism has erected a false Mary, which has a primary role in people's salvation. Such has misled many sincere people.

Again, all I can say is that the author has no idea what place Mary has in the Church. She is the Mother of God. If she had not said yes to God, Jesus would not have been born. Don't get me wrong, I do believe God could have done it any other way--BUT HE DIDN'T. He prepared the perfect "vessel", mother, and then gave her a choice to obey or not. She said, "yes" and became the mother of God Incarnate. How could that not be special? How could one say she has no place in salvation history? It actually makes no logical sense to say that Mary had nothing to do with it. However the author of this diatribe says:

Mary plays absolutely no role in our salvation.

She had the biggest role of any human being in our salvation. She carried our salvation in her human body. She nursed our salvation at her breast. She bounced our salvation on her knee.
Then he says:

This means you cannot trust in being a Catholic, the sacraments and/or Mary along with the Lord Jesus. You must trust in Jesus alone (100%). That implies a turning away from sin.

Another statement that makes this or any informed Catholic see that this author has no idea what the Catholic Church is or teaches. But let's just look at the surface of this statement. Why must there be an either/or. To me, he is also condemning himself with this statement because he says that you must trust in Jesus Christ 100%. Does he also say that his one rule or authority of faith is the Bible? Then he is putting his trust in something other than Jesus Christ, is he not? Yes, the Scriptures testify to Jesus and His ministry, but it also attests to Mary's place in that ministry, in the Apostles commission from Jesus continuing that ministry, and to the foundation of His Church which continues His ministry.

The Church does not imply the turning away from sin but outright preaches it. We worship and obey Jesus' commands. All of the Sacraments were founded by Jesus and He commanded the Apostles to teach them. And, the Church does not teach that Mary is Jesus' equal, never has, but does teach that He loves and honors His mother and that she prays for and loves all of His followers. She sees us all as her children. We, Catholics, do trust in Jesus alone, 100%; we just don't see that we must dishonor someone in order to honor Jesus Christ our Savior.

His next question has to do with Mary also, so I thought I'd include it here.

[5] Catholics think if they die wearing the brown scapular they will not suffer the fires of hell.

For one thing, it is obvious that the anonymous author knows nothing about sacramentals. Sacramentals are "sacred signs instituted by the Church to prepare us to receive the fruit of the sacraments and to sanctify different circumstances of our lives" (CCC 1677). They are the little things that bring us out of our ordinary lives and help us think of spiritual things and tell other people we are Catholic. The Rosary is a sacramental, so is the brown scapular. You can read more on sacramentals here.

 "The promise that wearing [the brown scapular] will ensure that a person who wears is guaranteed heaven. This guarantee is based on a misunderstanding of Our Lady of Mount Carmel's promise to St. Simon Stock that "whosoever dies clothed in this scapular shall not suffer eternal life."" --Michelle Arnold, staff Apologist, Catholic Answers

 People who say that a certain prayer or a certain thing will guarantee anything, including salvation, heaven, or to get out of Heaven is engaging in superstition which is strictly against Catholic teaching.

The brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel is best understood in the context of our Catholic Faith. It offers us a rich spiritual tradition that honors Mary as the first and foremost of her Son's disciples. This scapular is an outward sign of the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our sister, mother, and queen. It offers an effective symbol of Mary's protection to the Order of Carmel--its members, associates, and affiliates--as they strive to fulfill their vocation as defined by the Carmelite Rule of Saint Albert: "To live in allegiance to Jesus Christ." --Michelle Arnold, staff Apologist, Catholic Answers.

[I thought Ms. Arnold's explanations of the scapular were excellent.]
In other words, the brown scapular is not a lucky charm; you can't just put it on and be saved from hell. The Church does not teach that and the Carmelites do not teach that. The promise is for those who wear the brown scapular as a sign of their devotion and allegiance to Jesus Christ. Your devotion to Jesus Christ and His teachings are what will save you from hell. If you are wearing it as a talisman, or a good luck charm, the promise is not valid. It is as simple as that.
Read Ms. Arnold's article for an excellent explanation of the brown scapular and the promise attached to it.
So, to answer about this as a "deception", it is actually a misunderstanding of what a sacramental is and what the brown scapular as a sacramental is and what it can do. The scapular is a sign, like wearing a cross or crucifix around one's neck to proclaim to the world that one is a Christian. The scapular tells the world that one is a Carmelite or follow that Carmelite way of prayer and devotion to Jesus. 

That is long enough for this post.

[6] Catholics think the sacraments are a means of them receiving grace needed for salvation.
[7] Catholics confess their sins to a priest instead of to God.
[8]  Catholics who read and believe the Fatima Visions are dangerously thinking that Mary is our refuge and the way that will lead them to God.
[9] Many Catholics are just hoping to enter Purgatory and there get purged of their sins to afterwards go to Heaven.
[10] Catholics have been lethally misinformed about how to show their love for the Lord Jesus.

Catholic vs. Protestant -- why is there so much animosity?

I found an article on gotquestions?.org. I thought this site was a neutral site on religion, but boy was I ever wrong. It is a Protestant site that holds nothing back. In the article "Catholic vs. Protestant -- why is there so much animosity?", I detected a lot of animosity toward Catholics.

That was the question. The author's answer and some of my comments.

This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between the two religious groups.

Let's start there. What two religious groups? Technically speaking, both Protestants and Catholics are Christians, so we are actually the same religion. We just have doctrinal differences. And yes, some are doozies. Can we at least agree that we are all Christians? 

This particular battle is rooted in history. Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome.

Yes, much of the animosity between the two groups of Christians in rooted in history. However, spreading the fictional propaganda that Catholics persecuted and murdered Protestants is not going to help ease such animosity. Neither Catholics, nor the Catholic Church persecuted or murdered Protestants wholesale. Did the Catholic Church believe Protestants did not receive salvation at one time in its history?--yes. Has there been a battle between Protestant rulers and Catholic ones?--yes. Has the Catholic Church ever advocated a war against Protestants in general?--no. Obviously, this author did not study actual history but a revisionist version with propaganda mixed in. He's probably heard this balderdash so many times, he really believes it to be true.

From the history I learned (I went to a public high school and a Baptist College), Catholics were not the aggressors in Protestant (Calvinist) Switzerland, nor in Henry VIII's, Edward VI's, or Elizabeth I's England, nor Northern France. Calvin was a lawyer turned "theologian" who left France during the Protestant uprising there. He went to Switzerland where he was instrumental in helping Protestants take over the government and the church there. It was a very restrictive society under the Protestants.

Voltaire wrote: "If they condemned celibacy in the priests, and opened the gates of the convents, it was only to turn all society into a convent. Shows and entertainments were expressly forbidden by their religion; and for more than two hundred years there was not a single musical instrument allowed in the city of Geneva. They condemned auricular confession, but they enjoined a public one; and in Switzerland, Scotland, and Geneva it was performed the same as penance." [This was my addition, not included in the gotquestions?.org article]

Neither society, nor Christianity was improved by Calvin, Luther, Zwingli and their ilk. There was no "reformation" only a deformation of the Church.

Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to "warm up" to Rome any time soon.

It is the other way around, sir. Catholics are not going to warm up to Protestants who say such nonsense.  The Catholic Church, though its leader is in Rome, is not Rome. The pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit. Have there been terrible popes? Of course, they're human. Was the Catholic Church founded in the 16th century or later? No, but all modern Protestant churches have been. What does that tell you? The the Catholic Church has its foundation in Christ's teaching from 33AD to the present. The 16th + century churches were made from hole cloth by their founders (who were certainly not Jesus Christ). No, Catholics are not going to "warm up" to people who call them the beast or accuse them of murder.

For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths.

I whole-heartedly agree. The problem that Protestants don't seem to see is that there can only be one truth. You can't have hundreds of different truths--as there are in Protestantism. Every preacher is his own pope, his own authority on "truth"; he is the one who interprets the Scriptures and preaches his own gospel in a church he figuratively or actually built.

Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap. Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save, while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching.

1) Paul, the Protestant's favorite writer, says that he is working out his salvation, trembling. There are certain things we do need to do to be saved. The first work of salvation is FAITH. "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (Jn 6:29 KJV) We must believe, not as the demons do ("Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19 KJV)), but as the saints in Heaven ("The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne (Rev. 4:10 KJV).

2) We do not believe that good works ALONE save us. This is what Protestants believe that we believe. No, Catholics do not believe that; do not preach that; do not advocate that. However, Catholics do believe that you must work out your salvation in the sense that Paul meant ("...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil. 2:12 KJV) -by the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist) and much prayer.  If Protestants don't believe that prayer is important in the plan of salvation (it is a "work" after all), why would they be doing it in the first place?

3) Many, many Protestant churches and individuals do believe in "easy-believism." When a church advocates the "sinners prayer" is all you need to be saved--what do you call that? Many Protestant churches don't believe there is any salvific merit in the "Lord's Supper" or baptism. Things that Jesus commanded us to do. "Do this in memory of Me." "Go into all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Both from memory) I, as a Catholic, don't understand why Jesus Christ's commands are not important to Protestants.

Protestants blame Catholics for worshipping Mary,...

Blaming Catholics for what? Accusing them you mean? This accusation started after the "Reformation", as all the leading "reformers" did respect and honor Mary.

Luther said, "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."
(Sermon, September 1, 1522)

And, "One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

We honor Mary, ironically as Luther said, not for her sake, "but for the sake of Christ." We do not "worship" Mary. We worship God, in Holy Trinity, alone.

...and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard.

I don't believe that to be true. Catholics, in my opinion, get tired of explaining the difference between honoring someone and worshipping them. Protestants aren't too dull, just too stubborn to see another side to the honoring of Mary but the erroneous opinion they believe it to be.

These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.

An "answer" like yours to this question, certainly will not help in overcoming the difficulties of this question, either.

Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments (sic), the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayer to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority. How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues.

Again, I would whole-heartedly agree. The issue is authority, not any of those petty things Protestants gripe about. Our authority is Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Every point of dogma and doctrine is based in those two authorities. All the councils, all the popes, every Father and Doctor of the Church, every theologian, down to the priests today studied, prayed over, discussed debated, and argued over doctrine. Jesus promised His apostles that He would send someone (the Holy Spirit) Who would guide them into "all truth." He kept His promise--the result is the Body of Christ present in the Catholic Church today.

The fact that Protestants think that they know better than 2,000 years of Holy Spirit-guided Catholic theologians seems more like arrogance than truth. 

When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn't really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks it is settled. This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic -- reason and Scripture are not the Catholic's final authority; they can always retreat into the "safe zone" of Roman Catholic authority.

This statement is a little insulting. In my opinion, he is calling us too dull to debate--what he accuses us of thinking of Protestants. Catholics are too stupid to debate Protestants because they can always "retreat" to Catholic authority and not reason. Really? You really believe that all Protestants who debate Catholics debate more reasonably? All, and I do mean each and every, Catholic dogma has its basis in Scripture, and, yes, all "defined" Catholic dogma must be believed by Catholics. Otherwise, we would be Protestants believing any old opinion we happen to agree with.

All dogma, if not found explicitly in Scripture, it is found implicitly and became a dogma after much prayer, interpretation and study by theologians (many dogmas for centuries). All of Catholic dogma is reasoned and is Scriptural. All Catholic dogma has been debated for almost two millenia. The reason Catholics "fall back" on Catholic authority is because it is inspired, proven Truth.

Seriously, how can Protestants have the Truth when they all disagree on so, so many things. How can there be many truths? ie, on what one must do to be saved, on baptism, on versions of the Bible, on communion, on what day of the week to worship on, on when or whether or not to celebrate Easter, etc, etc, etc. How can there be a truth to any of these things, if Protestants, all claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I'm sorry but I don't see that as "reason"ed.

Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's "private interpretation" of Scripture as against "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

Protestants have and do, continually, rely on their "private interpretation" of Scripture, many times with Scriptures either taken out of context or proof-texted in such a way as to be a veritable quilt of theology--patched together but not necessarily going together. They piece their theology together and step back and think, that is perfect. When, in reality, nothing goes together.

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their tradition. But this merely pushes the question back a step.

Actually, what Catholics claim, again my opinion, that the issues that they argue with Protestants has been argued and argued for a millenia and a half. They get tired of the same old Protestant interpretations and prejudices. Catholic theologians much smarter than the author of that article or me argued the very same theological points long before any Protestant came along. It certainly does not take a step back, in point of fact, it is skipping an unnecessary step--reinterpreting for the thousandth times thousandth time any theological issue has been argued.

The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe.

Ok. At least here the author, accidentally, admits that Catholics do reason and have some skill in arguing. All Catholic converts I know (I am a convert to Catholicism) have reasoned and interpreted "to determine what they will believe."  I know that I, personally, challenged the Holy Spirit to convince me, if the Catholic Church were true. He, personally, answered my every challenge, including issues about the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is why I became a member of the True Body of Christ.

Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

Not true. If this is your idea of dissipating hostilities, you run short sir. Catholics do reason, and learn to do so in religious education, Catholic schools, and Catholic universities and seminaries. The picture you attempt to paint of unreasoning, ignorant, or mindless Catholics is defamatory. I don't know any Catholic that thinks Protestants are dull (your word). However, I do believe that the fact that the vocabulary of the Protestants differs from that of Catholics and thus the misunderstandings.

Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments.

I would agree with this statement with one caveat: Catholics do not preach anti-Protestantism in their churches; many a Protestant pulpit, however, is used to malign Catholics and their faith.

Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues.

What are secondary issues? Mary? Baptism? The Eucharist? What are the primary issues that Protestants hold dear? The only one I know common to all Protestants is "Scripture alone" or is it "by faith alone" or "God alone"? I hear so many versions of so-called "sola scriptura" or Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians, that I can't tell what this "truth" is either.

Beyond that, we can agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in agreement. When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore.

But...but, you just said "we should not divide over secondary issues." Now the differences are "just too great to ignore." Huh? Why aren't the differences in the many, many sects of Protestantism "too great to ignore?" In my eyes, it seems that Protestants think, "We are not Catholic, therefore we are all united in truth." That is just not a reasoned argument for the unity of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is quite physically visible in the Catholic Church.

However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.

Yet, you give several caricatures and ignorant judgments of Catholics in this article.

"Go beyond what God has revealed?" Nothing in Catholic doctrine is "beyond what God has revealed." All of it, in fact, was revealed by God the Holy Spirit.

He goes on to recommend a book on Protestantism compared to Catholicism--of course, from a purely Protestant perspective, and I believe would include the propaganda and "caricatures" revealed in this article.

Original article on gotquestions?org : http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-vs-Protestant.html

A Catholic Layman's Take on the "Twelve Differences Between Catholics and Protestants"

In researching a paper, I came across an article titled  Twelve Differences Between Catholics and Protestants.  The author did not say, in the article, what her affiliation was but claimed to be neutral for this article.  Here are her 12 "simple differences" and some clarifications from a Catholic layman.

Pope Francis

1. The Pope. Catholics have a Pope, which they consider a vicar for Christ — an infallible stand-in, if you will — that heads the Church. Protestants believe no human is infallible and Jesus alone heads up the Church.

Of course the pope is a "difference" between Catholics and Protestants.  The very name "Protestant" bespeaks of the protest of certain men and their followers in the 16th century who left the Church and founded churches on their own feelings, opinions, and personal interpretation of Scripture, and protesting against the authority and doctrine of the Church.

The pope is the vicar of Christ.  It is a title of honor as well as jurisdiction meaning that he is the earthly head of the Church, representing our true Head, Jesus Christ.  Christ Himself appointed Peter as His vicar when He said, "Feed My lambs...feed My sheep" (John 21:16-17).  This authority has been placed in the hands of subsequent popes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit and soul of the Christ's Church.

The pope however is not infallible in the way Protestants believe the word to mean.  Infallible does not mean he is sinless or never makes mistakes.  The pope goes to confession just like every other practicing Catholic does.  He is not perfect; he does sin.

Actually, infallibility is a charism (a gift or grace from God in order to do something God asks of us) given to the  pope which makes it impossible for him, as pope, to declare any error in doctrine.  This infallibility only applies to proclamations of doctrine that he has prayed over, has run by many theologians and bishops, and declared or proclaimed from the "chair of Peter."  While the pope's other writings and teachings are considered authoritative, they are not all infallible.

An example of an infallible declaration is the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854:

...for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." [emphasis mine]

Notice the declaration (in quotes) and how it is meant to be for "all the faithful."  This type of proclamation is protected by the Holy Spirit.

St. Patrick's Cathedral, NYC

2.  Big, Fancy Cathedrals. Catholics have them; Protestants don’t. Why? Catholicism says that “humanity must discover its unity and salvation” within a church. Protestants say all Christians can be saved, regardless of church membership. (Ergo… shitty, abandoned storefront churches? All Protestant.)

I can only address some of the many reasons for the "big, fancy" Catholic Cathedrals.  1) They were meant to model the Church after the Kingdom of Heaven.  When one steps into a cathedral (especially the vaulted, medieval ones) you are meant to feel as if you stepped into that Heavenly place.  2) The stained glass windows, statues, wall paintings, mosaics and tapestries of the medieval and middle ages Cathedrals were there to tell the stories of Scripture to illiterate worshipers.   The vast majority of the population lived just above poverty level, with no time to sit and learn to read.  (Even Emperor Charlemagne was illiterate.)  Statues and pictures of saints tell the stories of these wonderful Christians who are a part of the family of God.  In other words, they are family portraits.  3) The artwork in the cathedrals was both education for the people and gifts from the artists (or patrons of the artists).  4) The cathedrals, generally, were built by the people over a century or more as  a gift to God--a form of worship to God.

I would like to know where the quote "humanity must discover its unity and salvation" within a church came from.  I'm not sure what the author is trying to imply here.  The Catholic Church believes that Christ founded one Church and meant it to stay one ("...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.").  So, that is the unity, but it is not about the building.  The Church believes that salvation comes through the Church, however tangentially.  There is the salvation part, but that is not about the building either.  Maybe this is just a case of a Protestant not understanding Catholic vocabulary.?  Who knows.

While it is true that there are crappy store-front Protestant churches, there are also some pretty spectacular Protestant Churches such as the Washington National Cathedral, the Episcopalian Cathedral in DC which took over a century to build in modern times.

St. Walburga

3. Saints. Catholics pray to saints (holy dead people) in addition to God and Jesus. Protestants acknowledge saints, but don’t pray to them.

It is important to clarify here that Catholics do not pray to "holy dead people".  We talk to our living family members.  When we pray to the saints, it is indeed in addition to praying to God, but it does not replace praying to God.  One, we believe the saints to be alive ("He is not the God of the dead but of the living" Mark 12:27) and with Christ their Savior.  Two, we pray to them to talk to God for us, just as we ask the other members of the family of God on earth.

I don't know which Protestants acknowledge saints (except in the generic we're-all-saints way) apart from Orthodox and Lutherans, at least not in the same context.  Many Protestants believe that all "believers" (In quotes, because believers is whatever their personal definition of a believer might be) to be saints.  Therefore, the meaning of the word doesn't even correlate. 

Holy Water font

4.  Holy Water. Catholics only.

Here the author did not even explain if or why holy water is a problem.  Why holy water?  Yeah, that's a difference, of sorts...

Here are some points on holy water:
--Water was used to ceremonially wash the body before entering the Temple in Jerusalem and it was a custom in the early Church as well.
--Holy water is used for baptism.
--Holy water fonts are available in Catholic Churches to remind us of our baptism and ceremonially cleanse us upon entering the nave (the main body of the Church).
--Catholics are sprinkled with water at certain Masses, reminding us of our baptism and our baptismal promises.
--On the altar, the priest pours a small amount of holy water in the chalice, indicating the water which came from the side of Christ along with His blood.
--The priest purifies his hands (ceremonially washes) before the Eucharistic prayers.
--It is a sacramental, not magic.

Fr. Morris, seen on TV

5. Celibacy and Nuns. Catholics only.

Celibacy was advocated by Christ and soon followed by the Early Church.

The disciples said to him, 'If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.' But he replied, 'It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted. There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.'  (Matthew 19:10-12; emphasis mine)

The writings of the Church fathers show that, in the early Church, married priests were not the accepted norm in the main centres of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. They were considered a "problem" that existed in the outlying regions. By the third century there were almost no married priests and several councils put the issue to rest until around the 9th century when many bishops and priests took wives and had children. The state of the priesthood fell to an all time low.  A huge problem emerged with priests "willing" Church property to their families. Up to that point, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church. In 1123, celibacy was made official. Although, throughout history there have been scattered instances of abuses of the Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently stuck to this position on celibate priests.  (Catholic Bridge, "Why Can't priests get married?")

Ingrid Bergman in Bells of St. Mary's

In this day and age of clergy divorce, adultery, and "Preacher's daughters", the importance of singular dedication to God and their calling should be very apparent.  What some anti-Catholics do not understand is that there are married priests in the Catholic church.  Yes, they are the minority, but they do exist.  Celibacy is a discipline in order for priests and other religious to dedicate their whole lives to God without the distractions of spouse, children, and family responsibilities.  Men who become priests are responsible for a much bigger family--Christ's family.

In point of fact the Catholic Church is not the only church with nuns.  Both the Anglican church, and the Orthodox church have nuns, and the Lutheran church has "deaconesses".  I don't know much about Protestant nuns but Catholic nuns are women dedicated to Jesus Christ alone.  They spend their days praying for the salvation of the world and doing good (humanitarian) works.  This can only be a good thing.

6. Purgatory: Catholics only.

Yes and no.

Purgation  or Purgatory is not only Scriptural but traditional.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Revelations 21:27 tells us that nothing impure will enter Heaven.

Purgatory is simply a place or state of being in which Christians are cleansed or purged of all stain of sin before entering Heaven.  It is neither a second chance, nor a place or state without hope.  Anyone who is in Purgatory or in the state of purging knows that they will be in Heaven once the cleansing is complete.  Since it is after this life, time does not exist there, so we cannot say that you spend a certain amount of "time" there because time doesn't exist there.

There are other Christian sects that believe in purification before Heaven but will not call this state or process Purgatory in opposition to the Church.  So, actually there are Protestant sects that do indeed believe in it, they just don't call it that.

  

7. Scripture: The be-all, end-all for Protestants is “the Word of God.” For Catholics, tradition is just important as scripture — maybe even more so.

What the blogger fails to point out is that Scripture is part of Catholic Tradition. It is the most important part of the Tradition of the Church.  It is extremely important to the Church and her members.

 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."  (CCC 132)

Protestantism that I have personally experienced has traditions of their own that is every bit as important as Scripture.  Scripture alone as the "be-all, end all" is a protestant tradition not based in Scripture.

One of my favorites for Children

8. Catechism: Protestant kids memorize the Bible. Catholic kids get catechism.

It is not quite as black and white as that.  The "catechism" that Catholic kids "get" includes Scripture.  While Catholic Children don't memorize large chunks of Scripture word for word, they learn whole sections and stories by heart.  Ask any Catholic kid about Creation, Moses,  the Prodigal Son, or the Wedding Feast at Cana, the Last Supper, or the Passion of Christ, I bet you'd be impressed.  The catechism is a concise outline of the Faith passed down for twenty centuries which includes Scripture.  Children learn their Faith and learn why the Church believes what it believes.  The Catechism, including the children's version, is filled with the rich gift of Scripture. While many Catholic children can't spout memorized Scripture on demand, properly catechized children can tell others about what is in the Bible and what we believe about it.

Vatican Council II

9. Authori-tay: In Catholicism, only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret the Bible. Protestants hold that each individual has authority to interpret the Bible.

 Yes, the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.  Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church at Pentecost for this very reason.  He guided and inspired men who wrote the Scriptures, who taught the Scriptures, and interpreted the Scriptures.  The Holy Spirit-guided Church gave the Bible as we know it to the world--even the Protestants.  And, there has been nearly 2,000 years of Catholic theologians, scholars, and councils studying and interpreting Scripture, why would an individual believe they've come up with something new?  That is the height of hubris.

The error of individual interpretation of Scripture is what gave us the "33,000!" (I'm quoting the blogger, now) different Protestant denominations, churches, or communities--however they want to distinguish or name themselves.  There are protestants fighting protestants.  Just one example would be the importance of baptism for salvation: one groups says it is necessary, others say you're just getting wet.

10. Sacraments: Catholic are the only ones to have the concept of the seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony). Protestants teach that salvation is attained through faith alone.

Ironically, those that claim that their only authority is Scripture don't or won't understand that the only place that the words "faith alone" are found in Scripture, they appear in the negative.   

"So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17, NAB)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17, KJV)

Faith produces fruit or it is dead, after all, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19, KJV)     

These sacraments are beneficial in the order of grace and all seven were instituted by Christ.  God's free gift of grace helps us with our faith, and our faith gets stronger with each sacrament we partake in.

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. (CCC 1131)

Mary, Mother of God

11. Holidays: Catholics have 10 Holy Days of Obligation (which mean they must go to Mass). Protestants are more like, “Just come to church on Christmas, that’s all we ask.”

This blanket statement is much too general.

Yes, the Catholic Church in America has 8 Holy days of Obligation (2 of the original 10, Epiphany and The Body and Blood of Christ, have been transferred to Sundays) in addition to our Sunday obligation.  The reality is that all Catholics are obligated to go to Mass every single Sunday of the year.  The other eight days are in addition to the Sunday obligation.

The Nativity (Christmas)

The ten (the eight with the other 2 now on Sunday) days are:  Mary, Mother of God (January 1), Epiphany (Sunday after January 1), Ascension (either the sixth Thursday of Easter or the seventh Sunday of Easter depending on the diocese), Body and Blood of Christ (Second Sunday after Pentecost), The Assumption of Mary (August 15), All Saints (November 1), Immaculate Conception of Mary (December 8) and Christmas Day (December 25).

As for Protestants, I don't agree with the blogger's blanket statement.  In the Baptist church in which I grew up, it was expected, if not an outright rule, that all good members of that church went to church on Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evenings.  Also expected was attendance to any "revivals" and extra prayer meetings.  You were told in the minister's message how you couldn't be a good Christian if you didn't give time and money to God.  I'm sure that this "obligation" is still true in many Protestant churches today.

 

The Eucharist and Heaven

12. Communion: In Catholicism, the bread and wine “become” the body and blood of Jesus Christ, meaning that Jesus is truly present on the altar. In Protestantism, the bread and wine are symbolic.

While true, this is a broad generalization.  The Catholic Church does believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  The main reason is because we believe Christ words literally.  We believe He meant what He said:

Then he took bread, ...saying, 'This is my body given for you'...He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.' (Luke 22:19,20)

Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

Also, in the Orthodox and Lutheran traditions the bread and wine are more than symbolic, but expressed in a different way than the Catholic Church.

I, personally, feel sorry for Protestants who claim they believe in what Scriptures say, yet ignore what Scripture actually says.  If communion is just bread and wine (actually grape juice in most Protestants circles), what was the point of doing it in the first place?  Just going through the motions seems a lot less efficacious than believing in Christ's words.  

Conclusion: Christians have a lot more commonality than differences.  We all are sincerely trying to follow Christ and His teaching. Our Lord taught us to love God and love one another. Do I think Protestants are wrong on many levels?  Yes or I would not be a Catholic today.  I have found Christ, His Church, His family.  I am completely in love with my Savior and I believe that I am doing my best to follow Him and help my children know and follow Him.  Other Christians waste a lot of time, money, effort, and hatred on fellow Christians.  It is sad, really, because that is not what Christ intended. We are all God's children and we all deserve respect.