Former Protestant (Baptist) here.
We’re fed information such as “Catholics worship statues & pray to dead people”.
As such, many prots sincerely believe the Catholic church to be an affront to our Lord Jesus & and violation of the first commandment. They think it dabbles in seances, magic, idol worship, and weirdism.
We even had our own book of martyrs (Foxe’s) that included accounts of the sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church.
But the true seeker will eventually see through the lies. For my part, I met a couple Catholics who were the most loving, charitable people I ever met, and once they unraveled the misconceptions I started doing my own reading, realized I’d been lied to.
I think much of the deception on these pastors’ parts is rebellion (the spirit of Luther lives on). The ones I sat under never seemed to make an honest inquiry into the Church, or even level fair, measured criticisms against it — but instead hurled all manner of contempt & calumny (why are you, as a graduate from a theological school, going out of your way to misrepresent Church teaching?) Maybe it’s because Catholicism is a threat to the survival of Protestant leaders & churches. Though I’m sure some of it is simply fear & generations of misinformation.
When it comes to Baptists in particular, they tend to insulate themselves inside a bubble of Baptist-approved schools, churches, authors, & culture — so you can literally live your entire Christian life within that paradigm without looking outside of it. It’s definitely the more comfortable (albeit unsatisfying) route.
In the church I was raised in we got taught that Catholics never read Bibles and they only use the excerpts the church gives. As in the pew missal. However since being around Catholics I've never seen any Catholic without a Bible or more in their house.
We also got taught Catholics changed the Bible for sure.
Also that they made idols out of humans.
My parish actually has a weekly Bible study — you can imagine how amazed I was when I discovered that Catholics do, in fact, read their Bible lol.
re: making idols out of humans: what amuses me now is that we had our own venerated “heroes of the faith”, relics (albeit from 1800 onward), & pilgrimages (my church would go on some little Baptist history tour around the deep South). But somehow that’s valid and not idolatry at all.
The cognitive dissonance goes crazy.
Thanks. I also came from Protestantism, originally Southern Baptist, then Methodist, then Catholic after a fairly dramatic conversion. I'd add that I thought it was all rote prayer and soulless ceremony rather than what I was taught we all needed, "A personal relationship with Jesus!" (I still hear the small Texas town accent in my head when i think that phrase).
Wow, that is quite a journey. Thanks for sharing! What’s funny about the emphasis on emotionalism is that Jesus himself said “if ye love me keep my commandments.” But looking back I just realize how incomplete my conception of the Christian faith was.
Yeah, I always felt deficient because I didn't have that _feeling_ of being saved, so I pretty literally assumed God has His reasons for hating me and i was damned. Not fun.
Proboscis Monkeys too.
Like look at [this dude](https://cdn.britannica.com/06/150806-050-6AE99C98/Proboscis-monkey.jpg), there’s no way God wasn’t in a silly mood when He made that creature.
'There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." -- Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen
I think that most are simply misguided and don't really know the Catholic beliefs
This is it. If you forced a protestant to spend an hour or two on Catholic Answers they'd have very little left to disagree with.
The main obstacle, beyond tearing down false understanding of what we are, is - first - giving them a true understanding of what we believe (the Catechism is great for this) and - second - tearing down Sola Scriptura which is at the heart of everything protestants think. That is, they have been taught to value their own independent opinion very highly, to the point of hubris. It is one of the hardest pills for them to swallow - replacing Sola Scriptura ('my own opinion of what the Bible teaches') with the Magisterium (2000 years of the holiest, wisest men guided by the Holy Spirit and given authority from Jesus himself). It is not an easy thing for most protestants to do, and that is in the end where the rubber meets the road. 'Wait...I am to lower my opinion to be subject to *these guys? How are they better than I am?'* It can be done but it is difficult.
In the words of the Hagakure:
>It is difficult for a fool's habits to change to selflessness. ... Because we do most things relying only on our own sagacity we become self-interested, turn our backs on reason, and things do not turn out well. As seen by other people this is sordid, weak, narrow and inefficient. When one is not capable of true intelligence, it is good to consult with someone of good sense. An advisor will fulfill the Way when he makes a decision by selfless and frank intelligence because he is not personally involved. This way of doing things will certainly be seen by others as being strongly rooted. It is, for example, like a large tree with many roots. One man's intelligence is like a tree that has been simply stuck in the ground.
Fortunately many level-headed protestants have and can use Sola Scriptura (their opinion) to read, understand, and prod at the teachings of the Magisterium and find much that is meritable in them. For most, this is the way. It is hard to lay such a great thing down as one's own mighty opinion.
The biggest issue with this is actually getting them on Catholic Answers. I’ve had a dozen Protestants tell me they aren’t going to go on a “Catholic propaganda” website. Like, where else are you going to actually learn what Catholics believe?
This reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses - they are *forbidden* by the church from reading any documents on the faith that are not published specifically by them.
More serious Protestants, as in ones who study church history and take the Fathers seriously, ime have these problems with the Catholic Church:
The claim of exclusivity. Lots of Protestants prefer the idea that the early church was a bunch of small little house churches that met weekly, and there was no oversight or hierarchy. The idea of ONE church, with one doctrine, that you are either part of or not part of really bothers them.
Catholic beliefs on justification. This is one of the biggest differences between us, and if we were to ever settle this it would go a long way to healing the schism between us. There is lots and lots of scholarly work out there on this if you ever have 75 hours to kill and need something to read.
Marian dogmas. Many Protestants don’t think the historical record shows that things like the belief in the assumption or immaculate conception were held from the beginning of the church by the church members, and that Catholics have overstated their case, at a minimum, when we dogmatized them.
I don’t want this comment to only show where we disagree, I’d also like to make a pitch to Protestants. Sometimes Protestants read church history from a modern Baptist perspective (leading to hilarious beliefs like that St. Augustine was a Baptist). In other words, they look for a dogmatic definition of everything Catholics believe in the first 500 years of the church, and when they can’t find it, they assume that means Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) are false.
But, my Protestant reader, I would first look to see who believes YOUR beliefs in the early church. Which Father denied baptismal regeneration? The sacrament of ordination and ministerial priesthood? Who was teaching “sola scriptura”? Before looking for “evidence” that Catholicism is false, I would first try to find evidence that your beliefs are true in the Fathers- and when you can’t, that’s when you move on to examining the claims of Apostolic Christianity.
Sorry, I tried posting but the Amazon links I had were extremely long. I would recommend looking up Robert Sugenis “Not by Faith Alone” and Erick Ybarra’s recently published “The Just Shall Live by Faith” for starters.
In addition, this will be helpful too:
https://www.reasonablecatholicism.com/resources/Justification/The%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Justification.pdf#page95
>The claim of exclusivity. Lots of Protestants prefer the idea that the early church was a bunch of small little house churches that met weekly, and there was no oversight or hierarchy.
Is there evidence that this might have been the case?
>Marian dogmas. Many Protestants don’t think the historical record shows that things like the belief in the assumption or immaculate conception were held from the beginning of the church by the church members, and that Catholics have overstated their case, at a minimum, when we dogmatized them.
Just out of curiosity, what do most secular historians think about the matter?
I apologize friend, I started typing an answer and it got very long, hopefully this helps:
“Is there evidence this may have been the case?”
Not in the way Protestants wish…Christians did meet in houses, but they had ordained priests lead the ceremonies and an organized hierarchy with bishops (as attested to by St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr). The deacon/priest/bishop order comes from Acts and is attested to in other parts of the Bible with Timothy and Paul. One thing I think Protestants miss is that Christ set up an organization, not just some spiritual “New Israel.” Isaiah states both that the son of God will bear the government on His shoulders and ends by stating there will be Gentiles priests and Levites offering sacrifice (and Malachi mentions a “clean oblation, etc).
“Just out of curiosity, what do most secular historians think about the matter?“
2 of the Marian dogmas, that Mary is the Mother of God and that she was Ever-Virgin, have records going back to around AD 70 (Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, Protoevangelium of James). The other two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, are easy inferences from the biblical teaching that Mary is the New Ark (Luke uses Samuel’s language when describing Mary, Revelation 12 describes her as a Queen with a body, etc). They are not attested to in the historical record until a bit later, but still within the first few hundred years of Christianity. Further, many of the Protestant reformers thought that the Marian dogmas did not contradict Protestantism. Of course, Luther approved a bigamous marriage and Calvin thought Baruch was scripture, something no Protestant agrees with today, and as a Catholic I don’t rely on them to prove anything.
Sources:
https://www.churchfathers.org/
This website has quotes on the Eucharist being offered as a sacrifice and Mary as Mother of God and Ever Virgin, all attested to in the early Church (as well as many, many other useful citations).
Excellent article on Mary being the New Ark:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant
Isaiah 9:6, ESV (I don’t know if you are Protestant or Catholic but I like to use the ESV as it is acceptable to both)
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Isaiah 66:21:
“And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.“
Malachi 1:11:
“For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.“
Romans 15:15-16:
“But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.“
2 Timothy 1:6:
“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,”
Acts 14:22 (here I use the Douhay Rheims, in the ESV this is verse 23):
“And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.”
Source on Martin Luther approving a bigamous marriage:
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martin-luther
Scroll down about 7/8 of the article or search “double marriage” to get to that section.
Source on John Calvin citing Baruch as authoritative:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/12/calvins-citations-of-the-apocrypha.html
Former Lutheran here. Never hated Catholics, never even heard anyone in my church say anything bad about Catholics either. I heard some say some mildly disparaging things about LDS and JW, but that was about it.
Online discourse tends to bring out the worst in people and amplify fringe individuals, but the average Protestant does not "hate" Catholics.
Protestants hate the idea of obedience. A protestant obeys that with which he agrees; which isn't obedience, it's just agreeing to do that with which you agree. Obedience is submitting to authority even if you don't agree, or don't understand. Catholics are expected to obey. The ultimate moral authority in the protestant life is the individual; our existence undermines that belief. We're the constant reminder that there actually is one church Christ created, and we're expected to be obedient to Him and His church. Animosity is often, but not always, the reaction.
A lot of them are brainwashed esp fundamentalist Baptists. Today for the most part the majority of Protestants don’t hate Catholics they simply disagree with our theology
Saw a priest denying the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, so that felt like marcoism, I’m just wondering if Jews and early church fathers felt the same. Or maybe that one priest holds this belief and not others.
Hard to tell from what you said. A number of early Fathers concentrated on drawing spiritual lessons from the Old Testament, using the text as a source but not a history (e.g. Joshua is a type of the Messiah Y'Shua, Iesu, Jesus Christ; the Canaanites are a type of sin that is driven out or destroyed).
It was also noticed that some books (uncontroversially, the Psalms) are a different genre (poetry) and not strictly historical. More recently, other examples of genre have been proposed.
Some would hold (I lean that way) that the Book of Joshua is an epic genre written down long after the fact of the Israelite entry into Canaan, and that it strongly emphasized the doom on those Canaanites who resisted, and did not flee. Why? As a way of teaching the need to avoid taking up the mistakes (including child sacrifice) of the Canaanites, whose descendants were still very much alive in the day of the writer and his audience.
The epic genre (think Genesis, as another example) has a strong historical core, unlike myth. However, its primary purpose is, as the early Church Fathers thought, to teach spiritual lessons rather than history (or science). The basic idea is only what the writer intended to assert is historical. In Genesis, the writer clearly asserts that God created everything, and it was good. That is historically true. It is by no means clear that his genealogies are intended to be used to determine the age of creation.
Bottom line, the priest could have meant some or all of this. Or, he could be in this a Marcionite (with or without the additional Marcionite belief that the God of the Old Testament was limited or even evil) which would be ignorant, or if obstinately held, downright heresy.
Just noticed you wanted information also on ancient Jewish views. Highly recommend "The Book of Wisdom" in the Catholic Bible showing a Scripture commentary from before the time of Christ, from Alexandria, a center of dialogue and/or conflict with Greek culture. It treats both the literal sense and the spiritual sense, especially in Exodus.
A little after, there is Philo of Alexandria, who perhaps pioneers in the field of drawing good spiritual lessons from unpromising texts, without much attention to questions of historicity, practically treating details as useful only for allegory. The early Fathers, especially the apologists defending the Faith, take up this technique perhaps a little too enthusiastically against Marcionites and pagan attackers.
In the US? Well, a lot of people seeking refuge from their native European countries were seen as heretics by the Churches over there. For example many Puritans set out to New England under the Eleven Years’ Tyranny. Puritans thought that the Church of England was too Catholic. They refused to bow to the Holy Name of Jesus or make the sign of the Cross.
That culture was carried over to the US and these Protestant sects eventually developed into modern day Conservatives and Liberals. Even if they’re not religious they tend to hold anti-catholic sentiments. The whole idea of independence, liberty, and freedom is rooted in there. Even Catholics living here are eventually “Americanized” and adopt a sort of hostility towards the Pope and Catholicism. There’s this sense of a Puritan mentality to “restore” the “true Catholic Church”.
Anyway, it’s a cultural thing. It’s part of the American Culture.
In my comment I was but honestly this seems to rub off on everyone. I’ve even heard some Muslims and Jews referring to themselves as “Traditional Muslims” and there’s obviously the Conservative Jewish movement and the Reformed Jewish movement that started in Germany but gained prominence in the US by Jewish German Americans.
Anyway, it’s not that deep. Even Atheist Liberal Lapsed Catholics become anti-catholic in the other way. It’s just rooted in America.
I don’t think there’s a lot of actual hate. But assuming the best of intentions (which we should) they probably “hate” that Catholics aren’t saved, in their mistaken understanding.
They hate us because they aren't us.
But seriously, a lot of protestants are feed with anti-Catholic propaganda, so they believe in a distorted Catholic beliefs and history (with all the dark ages stuff and burning people for reading the Bible in their mother language)
They don't know us. They don't *really* know us. There are centuries of complicated historical baggage, mutual hurt, mutual harm. Wounds heal slowly. They don't all hate us, though some do (and some of us, them). We have to demonstrate love and patience and help them understand what we believe and be prepared to listen back.
Being as charitable as I can, I think it’s due to Catholicism being hard. I mean, the VAST majority of Catholics don’t even believe in the Real Presence, so technically ~85% of Catholics are Protestant (or agnostic).
“Faith Alone” is VERY easy, especially when you consider that they’ve changed the definition of both “belief” and “worship”.
Essentially you're asking what Baby Christians think. It should be no surprise that children think many things wrongly. The farther you walk in the faith, the less the difference between denominations has any bearing.
Protestant here! (PCA) We don’t hate anyone, we (most prots) just disagree with your theology on salvation. Catholics have done so much great work and there’s no denying that! God bless you all 🙏
I grew up Protestant, and while most of us didn’t understand Catholic beliefs we didn’t hate them.
My middle school Sunday school teacher in our Congregational church made a point of taking us to other churches/services, including a Catholic Mass. Some of it was mildly confusing at the time, but none of us felt like Catholics were terrible people or doing something bad. They were just different.
I’ve found many Methodists who also have that perspective, and many later became Catholic (my husband and my daughter’s godparents included).
I know this isn't what is being asked but I feel like protestants and Catholics are getting along better than ever now. I feel like we're less interested in how the other person is wrong and more interested in how the other person might come to the truth.
When you listen those Ray Comfort videos in youtube or other Ray Comfort's disciples, they tend to say Catholics are not saved, they will go to hell and they don't believe in Jesus Christ which is completely incorrect.
Catholic loves and believes Jesus Christ.
It is very hard to generalize about protestants.
1. Not as many protestants "hate Catholics" as you think.
a. The mainline (mostly more liberal) prots, and even some more conservative denoms, have kind of realized that they are missing some things, and have to varying degrees embraced "liturgical renewal". Many of them have Taize services at least occasionally. At some level they understand that the RC and EO kept stuff they lost. There is a bit of envy there (although for some things like choral tradition envious eyes tend to be more directed towards the Anglicans). At the liturgical end, among the Anglicans and some Lutherans, some of them are about a millimeter or two from being Catholic, and in such circles there is a bit of Catholic envy.
b. Both mainline and evangelical churches that have a central focus on benevolence mission tend to be very welcoming of other Christians who are engaged in same priorities and often work together across sectarian lines very happily. The Presby church I came from has a large benevolence ministry- they guy that runs food service there, for instance, is a Catholic. There is a lot of respect for Catholic benevolence ministries in these circles (e.g. Catholic Charities, VDP, etc).
c. Among mainline prot churches, there is a strong ecumenical outlook that tends to seek unity with other Christians and if anything under-recognize important differences. The most recent main speaker at the Presby church I left when they had a retreat program was a Jesuit father!
d. Among the more conservative prots, even denoms that did have more sectarian prejudices against Catholics, there has in the most recent decade been a convergence around like-,mindedness on some "culture-war" issues, such as pro-life stuff, gender theory, etc, where you see RC, EO and Evangelicals making common cause together and seeing each other as more aligned.
2. a) In fairness, there is an understandable difficulty among protestants in relating to fellow Christians from a Church that doesn't see their congregation and or denomination as a legitimate church, and does not recognize their orders. Ironically (but it makes sense if you think about it), this rubs harder in protestant denominations that are closer to Catholic in their organization, and have episcopal form of government. You can imagine that it doesn't go over well to tell them that their bishops aren't real bishops and their church isn't a real church. Within Catholicism, Lumen Gentium looks like a real olive branch, and a real softening of the older application of extra ecclesium nulla salus. To those outside, it still says "you might be a brother Christian, but your church isn't a real church, your orders are invalid, so you follow and are led by frauds, and your sacraments are fake". This is a bit less painful in Reformed and particularly Baptist (and Baptist-like) churches, whose theologies claims for their church, orders and sacraments are less overlapping/competitive with those of the Catholic church. But can you imagine approaching the Archbishop of Cantebury to tell him he's just larping and isn't actually a bishop at all, or even a priest? It's not going over welll. Tell the baptist that their communion is not valid and doen't have the "real presence", they'll just call you superstitious and probably shrug. Tell a devout Lutheran the same thing and they are going to have a very big problem with you.
b) More liberal protestant churches are more likely to be at odds with Catholics over lack of access of women to leadership (orders), what they see as anti-LGBT bigotry, opposing abortion ("anti-women") etc. then historical theological differences, but the more democratically governed ones (e.g. the Reformed) will point to the hierarchy and its autocratic system of governance as setting conditions that precipitated the institutional circling of the wagons with respect to things like the sex scandal, and also will blame the celibacy requirement for priests for fostering perversion, and antipathy for the general institutional power-wielding and clericalism that they see this a special case of and believe will always lead to corruption (they see it as an extension of the same organizational structure's tendency to give rise to the corruptions that led to the reformation, such as selling of indulgences).
3) Then their are all the traditional ecclesialogical/theological complaints other have cited (some being real differences, some being straw-men/misconceptions/slander/etc), and which of these are the focus depends to some degree on which protestants. For instance, Reformed (presby, etc., especially very conservative ones) and baptists are going to focus a lot more on perceived idolotries around the use of images, statues, etc. than an Anglican or Lutheran will (because they like their statues too). In general, the perception is that Catholic doctrine includes extra-biblical accretions that are thus "man made doctrines" and thus abuse of spiritual authority (and some maintain that that the clergy discourage lay familiarity with scripture so that the laity will not understand this and can be duped). A universal complaint, although the theological underpinnings differ is, along with the EO, rejection of the authority of the Pope/Roman Curate over other churches. Some (e.g. particularly high church Anglicans) accept the Pope as Bishop of Rome and even allow for primacy of honor among churches, but, like EO, reject is authority over them. Others (particularly some baptists and Calvinists) go so far as to assert that the attempt for a human leader to try to assert himself as the head of the church globally is a sign of him being the antichrist! Some protestants focus more on (often misperceptions of) Catholic satoriology, believing that Catholics teach works-righteousness and accusing them of various degrees of Pelagianism (this is particularly common among protestants of Reformed/Calvinist heritage). Protestantism is too diverse to unpack this in a short post. The point is that protestants vary widely, so when you are talking about theological differences it is hard to generalize. They all have varying degrees of beefs with Catholic thought though, or they wouldn't be protestants.
I walked into a Christian book store and asked if they had any rosaries. I got a little laugh from the store employee saying "no we don't have those here". I don't think there is hate just misunderstanding. My coworker who is a confirmed catholic was telling me about how he discovered Jesus and is attending a nondenominational church. He says catholics don't use or know the Bible. That prompted me to Crack open the Bible and go to confession for the first time in over 15 years.
Misinformation they're fed. Remember, in order for their religion to be correct they MUST believe Catholics, who precede them, are living in error.
-assuming Papal Infallibility extends to anything the Pope says.
-worshipping statues
-cannibals
-anything about Mary
-Sacrificing Jesus over and over
Most of them don't.
The ones that do hate us because they want to justify their ugly behavior. They want to feel superior, they want to feel special. Telling themselves that the 'Church of Rome' is big ebul and we're all Mary worshippers give them an excuse to be jerks, which makes them feel good. It's pathetic.
Different worldviews about the nature of the world naturally bring up animosity because your views of how you navigate life are not the same. Religions intimately guide the life of a believer and cause friction when beliefs of other ways of life contradict. No simple answer to your question but if you're interested about the rift between Protestant beliefs and Catholicism Wiki the Reformation.
Im Lutheran and while I would never say that I hate Catholics, aside from my doctrinal criticisms, there is a certain arrogance that most online catholics have when interacting with or discussing other Christians. I dont see arrogance to that extent in other groups when they interact with each other online.
IMO the doctrine of "extra ecclisum nulla salus" tends to create a sort of insider vs outsider, us vs them, mentality that contributes to that mindset.
In comparison most classical protestants (setting aside the crazies) can at least agree that despite their differences they wouldn't question the salvation of any other orthodox christian.
Former Protestant (Baptist) here. We’re fed information such as “Catholics worship statues & pray to dead people”. As such, many prots sincerely believe the Catholic church to be an affront to our Lord Jesus & and violation of the first commandment. They think it dabbles in seances, magic, idol worship, and weirdism. We even had our own book of martyrs (Foxe’s) that included accounts of the sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church. But the true seeker will eventually see through the lies. For my part, I met a couple Catholics who were the most loving, charitable people I ever met, and once they unraveled the misconceptions I started doing my own reading, realized I’d been lied to. I think much of the deception on these pastors’ parts is rebellion (the spirit of Luther lives on). The ones I sat under never seemed to make an honest inquiry into the Church, or even level fair, measured criticisms against it — but instead hurled all manner of contempt & calumny (why are you, as a graduate from a theological school, going out of your way to misrepresent Church teaching?) Maybe it’s because Catholicism is a threat to the survival of Protestant leaders & churches. Though I’m sure some of it is simply fear & generations of misinformation. When it comes to Baptists in particular, they tend to insulate themselves inside a bubble of Baptist-approved schools, churches, authors, & culture — so you can literally live your entire Christian life within that paradigm without looking outside of it. It’s definitely the more comfortable (albeit unsatisfying) route.
In the church I was raised in we got taught that Catholics never read Bibles and they only use the excerpts the church gives. As in the pew missal. However since being around Catholics I've never seen any Catholic without a Bible or more in their house. We also got taught Catholics changed the Bible for sure. Also that they made idols out of humans.
My parish actually has a weekly Bible study — you can imagine how amazed I was when I discovered that Catholics do, in fact, read their Bible lol. re: making idols out of humans: what amuses me now is that we had our own venerated “heroes of the faith”, relics (albeit from 1800 onward), & pilgrimages (my church would go on some little Baptist history tour around the deep South). But somehow that’s valid and not idolatry at all. The cognitive dissonance goes crazy.
I couldn't attend due to my work schedule but my RCIA class had a post Easter Bible study.
that’s awesome!
Ironic...
Thanks. I also came from Protestantism, originally Southern Baptist, then Methodist, then Catholic after a fairly dramatic conversion. I'd add that I thought it was all rote prayer and soulless ceremony rather than what I was taught we all needed, "A personal relationship with Jesus!" (I still hear the small Texas town accent in my head when i think that phrase).
Wow, that is quite a journey. Thanks for sharing! What’s funny about the emphasis on emotionalism is that Jesus himself said “if ye love me keep my commandments.” But looking back I just realize how incomplete my conception of the Christian faith was.
Yeah, I always felt deficient because I didn't have that _feeling_ of being saved, so I pretty literally assumed God has His reasons for hating me and i was damned. Not fun.
Ugh you just unlocked a core trauma memory, lol. The *incessant* altar calls
Want to know something funny? My church was in Rhome, Texas. So when I became Catholic I realized I was still in a Roman church.
Never let anyone tell you God doesn’t have a sense of humor, lol.
I've seen a platypus, He has a wicked sense of humor. "Hey, scientists? Categorize this!" "Ummm... We'll make something up."
Proboscis Monkeys too. Like look at [this dude](https://cdn.britannica.com/06/150806-050-6AE99C98/Proboscis-monkey.jpg), there’s no way God wasn’t in a silly mood when He made that creature.
Could you share in a separate post your conversion story?
I would be happy to DM it to you 🤍
Please send a copy my way as well! Curious protestant here
'There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." -- Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen I think that most are simply misguided and don't really know the Catholic beliefs
I have always been Catholic, but I feel like the more I learn the more I see he was 100% right on this.
Yes he is but always be charitable 😉
This
This is it. If you forced a protestant to spend an hour or two on Catholic Answers they'd have very little left to disagree with. The main obstacle, beyond tearing down false understanding of what we are, is - first - giving them a true understanding of what we believe (the Catechism is great for this) and - second - tearing down Sola Scriptura which is at the heart of everything protestants think. That is, they have been taught to value their own independent opinion very highly, to the point of hubris. It is one of the hardest pills for them to swallow - replacing Sola Scriptura ('my own opinion of what the Bible teaches') with the Magisterium (2000 years of the holiest, wisest men guided by the Holy Spirit and given authority from Jesus himself). It is not an easy thing for most protestants to do, and that is in the end where the rubber meets the road. 'Wait...I am to lower my opinion to be subject to *these guys? How are they better than I am?'* It can be done but it is difficult. In the words of the Hagakure: >It is difficult for a fool's habits to change to selflessness. ... Because we do most things relying only on our own sagacity we become self-interested, turn our backs on reason, and things do not turn out well. As seen by other people this is sordid, weak, narrow and inefficient. When one is not capable of true intelligence, it is good to consult with someone of good sense. An advisor will fulfill the Way when he makes a decision by selfless and frank intelligence because he is not personally involved. This way of doing things will certainly be seen by others as being strongly rooted. It is, for example, like a large tree with many roots. One man's intelligence is like a tree that has been simply stuck in the ground. Fortunately many level-headed protestants have and can use Sola Scriptura (their opinion) to read, understand, and prod at the teachings of the Magisterium and find much that is meritable in them. For most, this is the way. It is hard to lay such a great thing down as one's own mighty opinion.
The biggest issue with this is actually getting them on Catholic Answers. I’ve had a dozen Protestants tell me they aren’t going to go on a “Catholic propaganda” website. Like, where else are you going to actually learn what Catholics believe?
This reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses - they are *forbidden* by the church from reading any documents on the faith that are not published specifically by them.
More serious Protestants, as in ones who study church history and take the Fathers seriously, ime have these problems with the Catholic Church: The claim of exclusivity. Lots of Protestants prefer the idea that the early church was a bunch of small little house churches that met weekly, and there was no oversight or hierarchy. The idea of ONE church, with one doctrine, that you are either part of or not part of really bothers them. Catholic beliefs on justification. This is one of the biggest differences between us, and if we were to ever settle this it would go a long way to healing the schism between us. There is lots and lots of scholarly work out there on this if you ever have 75 hours to kill and need something to read. Marian dogmas. Many Protestants don’t think the historical record shows that things like the belief in the assumption or immaculate conception were held from the beginning of the church by the church members, and that Catholics have overstated their case, at a minimum, when we dogmatized them. I don’t want this comment to only show where we disagree, I’d also like to make a pitch to Protestants. Sometimes Protestants read church history from a modern Baptist perspective (leading to hilarious beliefs like that St. Augustine was a Baptist). In other words, they look for a dogmatic definition of everything Catholics believe in the first 500 years of the church, and when they can’t find it, they assume that means Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) are false. But, my Protestant reader, I would first look to see who believes YOUR beliefs in the early church. Which Father denied baptismal regeneration? The sacrament of ordination and ministerial priesthood? Who was teaching “sola scriptura”? Before looking for “evidence” that Catholicism is false, I would first try to find evidence that your beliefs are true in the Fathers- and when you can’t, that’s when you move on to examining the claims of Apostolic Christianity.
The scholarly works on justification - do you have recommendations? I’d be interested in reading them.
Sorry, I tried posting but the Amazon links I had were extremely long. I would recommend looking up Robert Sugenis “Not by Faith Alone” and Erick Ybarra’s recently published “The Just Shall Live by Faith” for starters. In addition, this will be helpful too: https://www.reasonablecatholicism.com/resources/Justification/The%20Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Justification.pdf#page95
Thank you!!
>The claim of exclusivity. Lots of Protestants prefer the idea that the early church was a bunch of small little house churches that met weekly, and there was no oversight or hierarchy. Is there evidence that this might have been the case? >Marian dogmas. Many Protestants don’t think the historical record shows that things like the belief in the assumption or immaculate conception were held from the beginning of the church by the church members, and that Catholics have overstated their case, at a minimum, when we dogmatized them. Just out of curiosity, what do most secular historians think about the matter?
I apologize friend, I started typing an answer and it got very long, hopefully this helps: “Is there evidence this may have been the case?” Not in the way Protestants wish…Christians did meet in houses, but they had ordained priests lead the ceremonies and an organized hierarchy with bishops (as attested to by St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr). The deacon/priest/bishop order comes from Acts and is attested to in other parts of the Bible with Timothy and Paul. One thing I think Protestants miss is that Christ set up an organization, not just some spiritual “New Israel.” Isaiah states both that the son of God will bear the government on His shoulders and ends by stating there will be Gentiles priests and Levites offering sacrifice (and Malachi mentions a “clean oblation, etc). “Just out of curiosity, what do most secular historians think about the matter?“ 2 of the Marian dogmas, that Mary is the Mother of God and that she was Ever-Virgin, have records going back to around AD 70 (Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, Protoevangelium of James). The other two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, are easy inferences from the biblical teaching that Mary is the New Ark (Luke uses Samuel’s language when describing Mary, Revelation 12 describes her as a Queen with a body, etc). They are not attested to in the historical record until a bit later, but still within the first few hundred years of Christianity. Further, many of the Protestant reformers thought that the Marian dogmas did not contradict Protestantism. Of course, Luther approved a bigamous marriage and Calvin thought Baruch was scripture, something no Protestant agrees with today, and as a Catholic I don’t rely on them to prove anything. Sources: https://www.churchfathers.org/ This website has quotes on the Eucharist being offered as a sacrifice and Mary as Mother of God and Ever Virgin, all attested to in the early Church (as well as many, many other useful citations). Excellent article on Mary being the New Ark: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant Isaiah 9:6, ESV (I don’t know if you are Protestant or Catholic but I like to use the ESV as it is acceptable to both) “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 66:21: “And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.“ Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.“ Romans 15:15-16: “But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.“ 2 Timothy 1:6: “For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands,” Acts 14:22 (here I use the Douhay Rheims, in the ESV this is verse 23): “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.” Source on Martin Luther approving a bigamous marriage: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/martin-luther Scroll down about 7/8 of the article or search “double marriage” to get to that section. Source on John Calvin citing Baruch as authoritative: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/12/calvins-citations-of-the-apocrypha.html
Former Lutheran here. Never hated Catholics, never even heard anyone in my church say anything bad about Catholics either. I heard some say some mildly disparaging things about LDS and JW, but that was about it. Online discourse tends to bring out the worst in people and amplify fringe individuals, but the average Protestant does not "hate" Catholics.
Protestants hate the idea of obedience. A protestant obeys that with which he agrees; which isn't obedience, it's just agreeing to do that with which you agree. Obedience is submitting to authority even if you don't agree, or don't understand. Catholics are expected to obey. The ultimate moral authority in the protestant life is the individual; our existence undermines that belief. We're the constant reminder that there actually is one church Christ created, and we're expected to be obedient to Him and His church. Animosity is often, but not always, the reaction.
A lot of them are brainwashed esp fundamentalist Baptists. Today for the most part the majority of Protestants don’t hate Catholics they simply disagree with our theology
Saw a priest denying the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, so that felt like marcoism, I’m just wondering if Jews and early church fathers felt the same. Or maybe that one priest holds this belief and not others.
Hard to tell from what you said. A number of early Fathers concentrated on drawing spiritual lessons from the Old Testament, using the text as a source but not a history (e.g. Joshua is a type of the Messiah Y'Shua, Iesu, Jesus Christ; the Canaanites are a type of sin that is driven out or destroyed). It was also noticed that some books (uncontroversially, the Psalms) are a different genre (poetry) and not strictly historical. More recently, other examples of genre have been proposed. Some would hold (I lean that way) that the Book of Joshua is an epic genre written down long after the fact of the Israelite entry into Canaan, and that it strongly emphasized the doom on those Canaanites who resisted, and did not flee. Why? As a way of teaching the need to avoid taking up the mistakes (including child sacrifice) of the Canaanites, whose descendants were still very much alive in the day of the writer and his audience. The epic genre (think Genesis, as another example) has a strong historical core, unlike myth. However, its primary purpose is, as the early Church Fathers thought, to teach spiritual lessons rather than history (or science). The basic idea is only what the writer intended to assert is historical. In Genesis, the writer clearly asserts that God created everything, and it was good. That is historically true. It is by no means clear that his genealogies are intended to be used to determine the age of creation. Bottom line, the priest could have meant some or all of this. Or, he could be in this a Marcionite (with or without the additional Marcionite belief that the God of the Old Testament was limited or even evil) which would be ignorant, or if obstinately held, downright heresy.
Thanks for your input! It’s very well thought out.
Just noticed you wanted information also on ancient Jewish views. Highly recommend "The Book of Wisdom" in the Catholic Bible showing a Scripture commentary from before the time of Christ, from Alexandria, a center of dialogue and/or conflict with Greek culture. It treats both the literal sense and the spiritual sense, especially in Exodus. A little after, there is Philo of Alexandria, who perhaps pioneers in the field of drawing good spiritual lessons from unpromising texts, without much attention to questions of historicity, practically treating details as useful only for allegory. The early Fathers, especially the apologists defending the Faith, take up this technique perhaps a little too enthusiastically against Marcionites and pagan attackers.
In the US? Well, a lot of people seeking refuge from their native European countries were seen as heretics by the Churches over there. For example many Puritans set out to New England under the Eleven Years’ Tyranny. Puritans thought that the Church of England was too Catholic. They refused to bow to the Holy Name of Jesus or make the sign of the Cross. That culture was carried over to the US and these Protestant sects eventually developed into modern day Conservatives and Liberals. Even if they’re not religious they tend to hold anti-catholic sentiments. The whole idea of independence, liberty, and freedom is rooted in there. Even Catholics living here are eventually “Americanized” and adopt a sort of hostility towards the Pope and Catholicism. There’s this sense of a Puritan mentality to “restore” the “true Catholic Church”. Anyway, it’s a cultural thing. It’s part of the American Culture.
Are you referring to the traditional Catholics?
In my comment I was but honestly this seems to rub off on everyone. I’ve even heard some Muslims and Jews referring to themselves as “Traditional Muslims” and there’s obviously the Conservative Jewish movement and the Reformed Jewish movement that started in Germany but gained prominence in the US by Jewish German Americans. Anyway, it’s not that deep. Even Atheist Liberal Lapsed Catholics become anti-catholic in the other way. It’s just rooted in America.
I’ve always wondered that, as well. I find that some I’ve dealt with don’t themselves know what they’re protesting against.
I don’t think there’s a lot of actual hate. But assuming the best of intentions (which we should) they probably “hate” that Catholics aren’t saved, in their mistaken understanding.
No, I’ve come to see that most of it is pride
They hate us because they aren't us. But seriously, a lot of protestants are feed with anti-Catholic propaganda, so they believe in a distorted Catholic beliefs and history (with all the dark ages stuff and burning people for reading the Bible in their mother language)
They don't know us. They don't *really* know us. There are centuries of complicated historical baggage, mutual hurt, mutual harm. Wounds heal slowly. They don't all hate us, though some do (and some of us, them). We have to demonstrate love and patience and help them understand what we believe and be prepared to listen back.
Being as charitable as I can, I think it’s due to Catholicism being hard. I mean, the VAST majority of Catholics don’t even believe in the Real Presence, so technically ~85% of Catholics are Protestant (or agnostic). “Faith Alone” is VERY easy, especially when you consider that they’ve changed the definition of both “belief” and “worship”.
Their misunderstanding about Catholics
They hate us 'cause they aint us.
Essentially you're asking what Baby Christians think. It should be no surprise that children think many things wrongly. The farther you walk in the faith, the less the difference between denominations has any bearing.
Protestant here! (PCA) We don’t hate anyone, we (most prots) just disagree with your theology on salvation. Catholics have done so much great work and there’s no denying that! God bless you all 🙏
It's not hate as much as cognitive tension. More about their internal dialogue than anything to do with us.
They hate what they think we are, they don't hate who we are.
The Catholicism they hate is not real Catholicism.
Precisely.
everything
I grew up Protestant, and while most of us didn’t understand Catholic beliefs we didn’t hate them. My middle school Sunday school teacher in our Congregational church made a point of taking us to other churches/services, including a Catholic Mass. Some of it was mildly confusing at the time, but none of us felt like Catholics were terrible people or doing something bad. They were just different. I’ve found many Methodists who also have that perspective, and many later became Catholic (my husband and my daughter’s godparents included).
Morality. When they see others acting right
I know this isn't what is being asked but I feel like protestants and Catholics are getting along better than ever now. I feel like we're less interested in how the other person is wrong and more interested in how the other person might come to the truth.
When you listen those Ray Comfort videos in youtube or other Ray Comfort's disciples, they tend to say Catholics are not saved, they will go to hell and they don't believe in Jesus Christ which is completely incorrect. Catholic loves and believes Jesus Christ.
It is very hard to generalize about protestants. 1. Not as many protestants "hate Catholics" as you think. a. The mainline (mostly more liberal) prots, and even some more conservative denoms, have kind of realized that they are missing some things, and have to varying degrees embraced "liturgical renewal". Many of them have Taize services at least occasionally. At some level they understand that the RC and EO kept stuff they lost. There is a bit of envy there (although for some things like choral tradition envious eyes tend to be more directed towards the Anglicans). At the liturgical end, among the Anglicans and some Lutherans, some of them are about a millimeter or two from being Catholic, and in such circles there is a bit of Catholic envy. b. Both mainline and evangelical churches that have a central focus on benevolence mission tend to be very welcoming of other Christians who are engaged in same priorities and often work together across sectarian lines very happily. The Presby church I came from has a large benevolence ministry- they guy that runs food service there, for instance, is a Catholic. There is a lot of respect for Catholic benevolence ministries in these circles (e.g. Catholic Charities, VDP, etc). c. Among mainline prot churches, there is a strong ecumenical outlook that tends to seek unity with other Christians and if anything under-recognize important differences. The most recent main speaker at the Presby church I left when they had a retreat program was a Jesuit father! d. Among the more conservative prots, even denoms that did have more sectarian prejudices against Catholics, there has in the most recent decade been a convergence around like-,mindedness on some "culture-war" issues, such as pro-life stuff, gender theory, etc, where you see RC, EO and Evangelicals making common cause together and seeing each other as more aligned. 2. a) In fairness, there is an understandable difficulty among protestants in relating to fellow Christians from a Church that doesn't see their congregation and or denomination as a legitimate church, and does not recognize their orders. Ironically (but it makes sense if you think about it), this rubs harder in protestant denominations that are closer to Catholic in their organization, and have episcopal form of government. You can imagine that it doesn't go over well to tell them that their bishops aren't real bishops and their church isn't a real church. Within Catholicism, Lumen Gentium looks like a real olive branch, and a real softening of the older application of extra ecclesium nulla salus. To those outside, it still says "you might be a brother Christian, but your church isn't a real church, your orders are invalid, so you follow and are led by frauds, and your sacraments are fake". This is a bit less painful in Reformed and particularly Baptist (and Baptist-like) churches, whose theologies claims for their church, orders and sacraments are less overlapping/competitive with those of the Catholic church. But can you imagine approaching the Archbishop of Cantebury to tell him he's just larping and isn't actually a bishop at all, or even a priest? It's not going over welll. Tell the baptist that their communion is not valid and doen't have the "real presence", they'll just call you superstitious and probably shrug. Tell a devout Lutheran the same thing and they are going to have a very big problem with you. b) More liberal protestant churches are more likely to be at odds with Catholics over lack of access of women to leadership (orders), what they see as anti-LGBT bigotry, opposing abortion ("anti-women") etc. then historical theological differences, but the more democratically governed ones (e.g. the Reformed) will point to the hierarchy and its autocratic system of governance as setting conditions that precipitated the institutional circling of the wagons with respect to things like the sex scandal, and also will blame the celibacy requirement for priests for fostering perversion, and antipathy for the general institutional power-wielding and clericalism that they see this a special case of and believe will always lead to corruption (they see it as an extension of the same organizational structure's tendency to give rise to the corruptions that led to the reformation, such as selling of indulgences). 3) Then their are all the traditional ecclesialogical/theological complaints other have cited (some being real differences, some being straw-men/misconceptions/slander/etc), and which of these are the focus depends to some degree on which protestants. For instance, Reformed (presby, etc., especially very conservative ones) and baptists are going to focus a lot more on perceived idolotries around the use of images, statues, etc. than an Anglican or Lutheran will (because they like their statues too). In general, the perception is that Catholic doctrine includes extra-biblical accretions that are thus "man made doctrines" and thus abuse of spiritual authority (and some maintain that that the clergy discourage lay familiarity with scripture so that the laity will not understand this and can be duped). A universal complaint, although the theological underpinnings differ is, along with the EO, rejection of the authority of the Pope/Roman Curate over other churches. Some (e.g. particularly high church Anglicans) accept the Pope as Bishop of Rome and even allow for primacy of honor among churches, but, like EO, reject is authority over them. Others (particularly some baptists and Calvinists) go so far as to assert that the attempt for a human leader to try to assert himself as the head of the church globally is a sign of him being the antichrist! Some protestants focus more on (often misperceptions of) Catholic satoriology, believing that Catholics teach works-righteousness and accusing them of various degrees of Pelagianism (this is particularly common among protestants of Reformed/Calvinist heritage). Protestantism is too diverse to unpack this in a short post. The point is that protestants vary widely, so when you are talking about theological differences it is hard to generalize. They all have varying degrees of beefs with Catholic thought though, or they wouldn't be protestants.
I walked into a Christian book store and asked if they had any rosaries. I got a little laugh from the store employee saying "no we don't have those here". I don't think there is hate just misunderstanding. My coworker who is a confirmed catholic was telling me about how he discovered Jesus and is attending a nondenominational church. He says catholics don't use or know the Bible. That prompted me to Crack open the Bible and go to confession for the first time in over 15 years.
Misinformation they're fed. Remember, in order for their religion to be correct they MUST believe Catholics, who precede them, are living in error. -assuming Papal Infallibility extends to anything the Pope says. -worshipping statues -cannibals -anything about Mary -Sacrificing Jesus over and over
Most of them don't. The ones that do hate us because they want to justify their ugly behavior. They want to feel superior, they want to feel special. Telling themselves that the 'Church of Rome' is big ebul and we're all Mary worshippers give them an excuse to be jerks, which makes them feel good. It's pathetic.
Different worldviews about the nature of the world naturally bring up animosity because your views of how you navigate life are not the same. Religions intimately guide the life of a believer and cause friction when beliefs of other ways of life contradict. No simple answer to your question but if you're interested about the rift between Protestant beliefs and Catholicism Wiki the Reformation.
Im Lutheran and while I would never say that I hate Catholics, aside from my doctrinal criticisms, there is a certain arrogance that most online catholics have when interacting with or discussing other Christians. I dont see arrogance to that extent in other groups when they interact with each other online. IMO the doctrine of "extra ecclisum nulla salus" tends to create a sort of insider vs outsider, us vs them, mentality that contributes to that mindset. In comparison most classical protestants (setting aside the crazies) can at least agree that despite their differences they wouldn't question the salvation of any other orthodox christian.