Symbols and Systems: Why Catholics and Protestants Don't See Eye to Eye

My niece's husband is a trainee Baptist pastor. Jimbo's hip, friendly, and fun to be with. He's smart and theologically savvy. I like him. He loves Jesus and believes the Bible, and on most moral and doctrinal issues I can affirm what he affirms. We agree on a lot.

But even when we agree, we don't see eye to eye. Somehow we seem to have reached our religious conclusions from different starting points and through different routes. A chapter in Mark Massa's book Anti-Catholicism in America illuminated the problem for me. Massa quotes an important theological work by David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, in which he argues that, underneath our religious language, customs, liturgies, rules, and rubrics, there exist more fundamental ways of seeing.

Tracy says that Catholics have a basic concept of religion that is analogical. To put it simply, Catholics use things they know to try to understand the things they don't. Catholics seek to know God and His work in the world through material things: water, wine, bread, oil, incense, candles, images, and so on. For Catholics, some of these things are more than just symbols -- they are sacraments. They not only point to God, they convey His power and grace to us through the mystery of the Church.

For Catholics, this way of understanding the world, God, the cosmos, and everything is rich and multilayered. The Church is not only a symbol of the Body of Christ -- it is the Body of Christ. The bread brought forward by the members of the Body of Christ becomes itself the Body of Christ to feed the Body of Christ the Church.

The Catholic imagination and the Catholic soul are nurtured in a multitude of different sacraments, sacramentals, signs, and symbols. As a result, all physical things are part of God's plan of salvation. Life in all its fullness abounds with the mystery of God's life and love working through the world. This analogical way of seeing is dependent on, and comes from, the basic fact of God's revelation -- the Incarnation of His son, Jesus Christ.

In contrast, my nephew-in-law Jimbo, as a good Baptist, shares a radically different perspective on the whole shooting match. Jimbo, like every Protestant, has grown up within a basic religious paradigm that is more systematic. Tracy calls this "dialectical language." He says Protestant theologians, rather than seeing how physical things and human culture connect us to God, emphasize the radical separation between God and the physical world. The Protestant focuses primarily on man's alienation from God, the fact of sin, the need for redemption, and the need for man's response.

The linear thought process is like any other dialectic process: "Thesis = we sin; antithesis = God says 'no' to our attempts to save ourselves; synthesis = God saves us when we confess the truth and justice of God's 'no' to our sin."

The Protestant dialectical process means that Protestants emphasize the individual's existential inner response to God rather than the idea that God is "with us" working to save us in and through the physical and historical world.

Therefore, the idea that a visible church, a historic apostolic succession, a priesthood, and sacraments are necessary is -- at the very root of Protestant thinking -- alien and dangerous. For the typical Protestant, the Catholic Church is, by definition, worldly. Its very nature is materialistic and compromising with the world, the flesh, and the devil. For the Protestant there is therefore no relationship between Christ and culture. The faith is set up in dialectical opposition to the wisdom of man and the ways of the world.

Therefore the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are not doctrinal or ethical. The different propositional codes of the two heritages are but manifestations, tips of the iceberg, of more fundamentally differing sets of symbols. The Catholic ethic is "communitarian"; and the Protestant "individualistic" because of the preconscious "organizing" pictures of the two traditions that shape meaning and response to life for members of the respective heritages are different. Catholics and Protestants "see the world differently."

So what does all this mean for Jimbo and me? It means that even when we agree, we don't agree for the same reasons. For example, Jimbo and I may both sign up to work at the soup kitchen on Saturday mornings. As a Catholic, I'm more likely to see that hungry tramp as part of my human family whether he is a Catholic or not. I should feed him because he too is created in the image of God. In feeding him I am more likely to believe that I am also feeding Christ, and that this, in itself, is not only worthy but part of my own salvation, and part of the salvation of the world.

Jimbo wants to feed the homeless too, but he is more likely to do so because he wants to be personally obedient to the commands of Christ. He sees the poor hungry tramp as a lost soul who needs not only a sandwich but a savior. In fact, it's likely that Jimbo will give him the sandwich because he is concerned for the tramp's soul and wants to share the gospel with him and make sure he is saved.

This basic disconnect between our ways of thinking affects virtually everything. Because of the different perspectives, the Baptist and the Catholic will worship differently, pray differently, read the Bible differently, vote differently, produce radically different literature, art, and music. The two may share the same moral values, but they will do so for different reasons. They may share the same essential beliefs, but they will see them from different perspectives.

When we are engaged in dialogue with Protestants over doctrinal or ethical issues, our discussions will be illuminated if we understand the underlying differences of perspective. Furthermore, in the culture wars in which we are now engaged, Catholics and Protestants need to be allies. For the alliance to be strong and positive, both sides need to understand the essential differences of perspective.

Good fences make good neighbors. Only when we understand what truly separates us will we be able to work together with Protestants for the salvation of our society and the ultimate unity of Christ's Church.

Christendom was Catholic then, remember?

Oh no. The big C Catholic didn't come along for some time.

You're switching from micro to macro without answering the question. We were specifically talking about FR. Staying with that, I maintain my position, ( you can read a recent post right on this thread) although in the grand scheme of things I can take them all in stride. They would be meaningless to me except they have provided me with some educational value as a window into what some people might be thinking even if they've never said it to my face.

If you and I met face to face and I could gauge you as one who could give and take I might be more blunt than on this forum. Who knows?

You have a healthy attitude concerning the ignorant/hateful comments of a few individuals. Just try to remember they are not unique to one set of individuals.

This whole conversation makes me tired. Reminds me of reading TNS. :)

It's true. We can get caught up in rather unimportant dialogue.

It's hard to understand your Church's stuff because it's like reading a brief from a criminal attorney. You have to start out knowing what the definition of "is" is and it seems to change everyday. ;-0

LOL, I had to laugh at that because it's true (in a sense). If I may add however, the reason there are so many writings produced under the banner "Catholic" is because the Church has been in existence for at least 1700 years (if one subscribes to the "Constantine Creation" theory). Of course, I believe it's been 2000 years. ;)

Which brings me to a point that I think is relevant to consider: Let's say the Catholic Church dies at some point (I believe that's impossible of course, but for the sake of argument let's say that), and one of the mainline Protestant churches continues on (or maybe even a non-denominational) for another 1,000 to 2,000 years. I am quite certain that simply because of the natural human tendency to "write for" one's "denomination", that there would be an equal (if not greater, since the use of the written word is so much more common since the 16th century) amount of writings for that church after so long. Put another way, simply because the writings produced by the Church are vast and complex should in no way discourage anyone from entering (or re-entering) the Church. The vast collection of arguments and discourses are, at least, simply the by product of a Church existing for 2,000 years, not evidence of anything "hidden" or "nefarious" (not that you were implying that; just my thoughts on the subject.)

LOL - Many's the time I've wondered how conversations would go between some of us were we to actually meet those with whom we've debated here. I wonder if things would unravel the same way. Or - it could be a lot of fun.

I'd say it probably would not proceed in the same manner as: a) We wouldn't have an infinite amount of time to respond to another (as we do here, we can spend huge amounts of time looking up documents to "prove our case"); we'd have to actually engage in conversation, which has a tendency to omit certain facts, but also has the benefit of reacting better to a given situation and b) common manners and courtesy usually come to the forefront in actual physical contact much more so than across the Internet, (which is why meetings and dialogs are a vital component if there is to ever be any kind of "understanding" between Christians), so actually, such meetings would probably be much more "ecumenical" than we could ever achieve on FR.

The vast collection of arguments and discourses are, at least, simply the by product of a Church existing for 2,000 years, not evidence of anything "hidden" or "nefarious" (not that you were implying that; just my thoughts on the subject.)

I'm in the 1600 year camp myself because the structure and decision making was so very different the first 100 years after the Crucifixion and there were numerous churches loosely associated until the rise of Rome. Prior to this I believe the church created at Pentecost was just Christian and catholic in the original greek usage of the term ie., universal body of believers.

I would agree with your assessment of the nothing "hidden" or "nefarious" view. A great deal of what went on prior to the Reformation was the norm of it's day. IOW, it's easy to go back and yell about how bad persecuting other Christians or Jews was, but that is what the dominant churches of the state had traditionally done.

Likewise, the doctrines of the church were influenced by external forces. The aristocracy gaining control of the leadership is probably the greatest factor. I'm thinking of Ambrose who became a leader in Milan after only being in the church for one week as a good example.

Even with these changes there is still a core belief in the trinitarian God the Scriptures being inspired by God and a belief in the bodily resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ. We disagree on a great many things but I believe these core beliefs unite us as Christians.

Let's say the Catholic Church dies at some point (I believe that's impossible of course, but for the sake of argument let's say that), and one of the mainline Protestant churches continues on (or maybe even a non-denominational) for another 1,000 to 2,000 years.

Where I would disagree is what type of Christian church went forward. If it is one of the Sola Scriptura based churches the writings might be extensive, but never considered as equal because they would not have "Tradition" as a means to create what can't be found in Scripture. It's the "Tradition" leg of the stool in your church that has come up with almost all of the doctrines we 5 Sola types disagree with.

Therefore the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are not doctrinal or ethical.

I disagree with the part about doctrine. I am an independent Baptist and I have worked with Catholics, lived in the same house with Catholics, and demonstrated against abortion on the same protest lines with Catholics. And whenever we have discussed doctrinal issues it has quickly become evident that although we hold the same basic Christian ethical and moral standards, we have two very different doctrines regarding how a person is saved from eternal damnation and made an eternally secure member of Christ's body.

My conversations with Catholics on that subject have convinced me that Catholic salvation doctrine, at least as understood by those who I talked with, is basically salvation through good works, ideally beginning at baptism as an infant and progressing to final fruition by works of charity, righteousness, and obedience to Church doctrine and dogma throughout life. OTOH, protestant salvation doctrine encompasses both sola fide and sola gratia i.e., unearned and unmerited salvation imparted to the believer by grace through faith alone. The salvation doctrine of many protestant denominations, especially Baptist, is also closely associated with the doctrine of eternal security of the believer, IOW once saved always saved, while other protestants don't accept it.

IMHO most of the the other doctrinal differences between the two major branches of Christianity (except probably Sola Scriptura) can be dealt with to at least some degree of mutual satisfaction without either side saying or implying that the other does not represent authentic Christianity. But the plan of salvation is so critically important, and there is such a wide gulf between the two views of the most fundamental and important doctrine of all that I don't believe that there can ever be a reconciliation of the two doctrines without one side or the other admitting it's error and accepting the doctrine of the other, and I can't imagine that happening.

The anonymity and facelessness of the computer screen can make for a total disconnect from normal human patterns of civility.

FWIW, this is one of the features of this forum I truly enjoy. Often when we disagree with someone in person we are very careful to not "hurt their feelings". Here everything gets thrown on the table. If it gets me to irritated I just step away for a while, but I always learn what those who disagree are basing their position on.

Do you think the "physical sacraments" are a recreation of Judaic practices under a different name?

Judaism doesn't call them "sacraments," so I wasn't speaking with total accuracy. I merely wished to point out that, while Catholicism's symbolism has led most modern Catholics to regard the Bible as nothing but didactic mythology, Judaism's mitzvot (tefillin, tzitziyyot, etc.), while similar to Catholic "sacraments," have not led Orthodox Jews to redefine the Torah as a big Aesop's Fable.

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Therefore the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are not doctrinal or ethical.

Except it is. Most protties accept divorce, artificial contraception, women in the pulpit and a host of other doctrinal errors.

In Judaism how great a role does "Tradition" play. Is it considered equal to mitzvot (Holy writings?). Also, how centralized is the authority structure in Judaism?

Considering that Tradition preserves the authentic Biblical text and the rules and regulations for writing it down (so that it is an exact replica of the Torah Moses wrote) and that Tradition preserves the vowels and punctuation (which aren't in the Holy Writings at all), I'd say Tradition was mighty important. In fact, you couldn't even read a Bible without it.

“I gather that your point is that Prottys don’t believe that???”

Read the sentence again: I never imply. I’m not shy or tonguetied. If I thought that, I would write that. I did not.

Once Again, What is written is this:

Catholics believe Scripture is the inspired word of God and the Holy Spirit is God’s means of instructing men through His word.”

Got it?

Articulating our differences is not "trashing the beliefs of others."

Describing Protestant authority in terms of believing the scriptures and Catholic authority as blind obedience to men isn't "articulating differences," it's setting up a strawman misrepresentation of the other side's POV and then smashing it to score polemical points.

It's always interesting to recall that Protestants have no formal curses written down and preserved in ink and blood against Roman Catholics

No, incorporating "Pope is the antichrist" language in every one of your 16th century confessions isn't any sort of written and preserved formal curse.

I think a distinction that we often forget is the relationship between church and state. The RCC emerged through state sanction. It grew in authority and power through its connection to the state.

wm, I really think you need to re-read your history. The history of most of the medieval period in the West was marked by intractable conflict between the (supranational) church and the nation-state. It really isn't that long ago, even in America, that Catholics were widely suspected of having some sort of divided loyalty, as though their Catholic faith was not truly compatible with American citizenship. (The draft boards never seemed to regard it as any sort of disqualification, however.)

Look up concepts like "lay investiture" and the whole conflict between the King of France and the Pope, and the whole other conflict between the King of England and St. Thomas a Becket, and the whole other conflict between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor.

The so-called "reformation," especially in England, the German states, and Scandinavia, often enough consisted of the church decisively and finally losing that battle with the state. Luther was protected by "state sanction". Lutheranism was planted in Scandinavia and the German principalities by "state sanction". Anglicanism was explicitly established in England by Act of Parliament.

To paint Catholicism as a religion formed and imposed by state sanction, and Protestantism as its opposite, doesn't fit the historical record in the second millennium at all. It was often enough exactly the opposite.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.