As a Scottish Catholic who grew up in the Faith ,and continues to practice it in my old age ( i'm 79 ) ,i can truthfully say that we were never taught ,either in school or in Church to " hate " protestants or indeed Jews. We were taught tolerance ,love and forgiveness ,and Catholics do not " worship " the Pope. He us Christ's Vicar on Earth ,a successor to St Peter to whom Jesus said " Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it. Whstsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven ". Mary ( our Lady ) is the mother of Christ and ,by Christ's instruction on the Cross ,is now our mother also. We do not "worship" Mary or the Saints ,we ask them to intercede for us with the Lord !! The Catholic ( ie Universal ) Church was the FIRST Christian Church and it's sad and dangerous to deny this FACT ,thereby continuing to cause division just when the rise of Islam is a danger to the world ,indeed all of humanity. May God protect us all.🙏🙏🙏
That was my experience both growing up in the Kirk and in the Episcopal Scottish Church. I certainly experienced none of this when I converted to Catholicism.
This is why I mention the cultural side of it in my article because the sectarian division is, at the end of the day, a badge for tribalism and as you know ... us Scots and Ulster Scots could start a fight over an empty paper bag!
I think there can be a lot of going through the motions, and implicit tribalism to boot. While this is common in many institutions, Christians do need to try and avoid it and show a better way.
I agree Christians need to focus on real enemies rather than replaying conflicts from several centuries ago. As you say, it's right that matters of essential doctrine are debated, but it's more essential in these days to focus our aim on those religious and secular forces that would undermine the whole Christian heritage on which our civilisation rests. Not so sure, incidentally, that Catholics are more accepting of Protestants than vice versa, but that's another matter! The key thing is to show that we truly love our neighbours by pointing towards that embodied Truth by which everything in this world sustains.
Indeed, viz Catholic tolerance. My point is very much aimed at the evangelical Baptists in that part of the world and in that community. There are ample numbers of Catholics who need to understand this as well and I do factor them into other articles. My experience is that some Catholics are appallingly chatecised and I have certainly noticed very poor knowledge of Scripture with some. This isn't unique to Catholics. If I recall my own childhood in both the Kirk and the Scottish Episcopalian Church beyond basic Sunday school Bible stories there wasn't any real teaching about what Christianity IS and what it believes. Perhaps jn an.almost uniform Christian Nation this was assumed. Either way cradle whatever - you - ares are often poorly versed in Christianity unless a conscious attempt to continue education into youth and adulthood takes place.
The most obvious pointer here is when Christians who attend church regularly who go through the creeds liturgy and prayers, then conduct themselves in less than Christian ways. All too often it's pride, that most deadly and destructive of sins and one which we all have.. including me jn some of this comment.
As one who grew up as a Baptist in Northern Ireland, became an Anglican (SEC) in my thirties and is finally a Roman Catholic living in England, I am well placed to understand the viewpoints of many strands of the Christian Church. Long held prejudices are hard to shift, but I think the hymnwriter hits the right note: “Who serves my Father as a son, is surely kin to me.”
You say "The Catholic Church has never ceased to regard validly baptised Protestants as Christians, albeit separated". This is the crux of the matter. Roman Catholicism regards baptism, which it as an organisation provides, as being the key to being a Christian. This is wholly unbiblical. Anyone who believes this is not a Christian, and does not belong to Christ. The scripture say it plainly in many ways, but perhaps most unequivocally in Eph. 2:8,9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” No amount of catholic redefinition of “grace” can dilute the meaning of this.
I implore all Catholics to turn away from their priesthood, baptism, and good works as a means of eternal salvation because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". The only answer is faith in Christ alone "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Catholicism holds to a form of shared narcissism and arrogance in which it is the centre of Christianity and everyone else is "separated" from it. In reality the Roman Catholic departed from Christianity when it adopted infant baptism and so claimed the control over eternal salvation through it so-called priesthood. Todd Friel is right. The Catholic system does sit outside Christianity altogether. Roman Catholicism is the enemy of Christianity. Sola scriptura! Sola fide! Sola gratia!
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your comment deserves a serious answer, partly because it contains several substantial misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, but also because the manner in which you express those misunderstandings illustrates almost precisely the sectarian reflex that my article was addressing.
You begin by claiming that Catholicism regards baptism, “which it as an organisation provides,” as the key to being a Christian. This is mistaken at the most basic level. The Catholic Church does not regard baptism as an institutional commodity which Rome controls, nor does it claim that a ceremony performed by Catholic clergy earns salvation for its recipient. Indeed, the fact that the Church recognises valid Protestant baptism should immediately have alerted you to the weakness of that argument. A person baptised with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not ordinarily baptised again upon becoming Catholic, because baptism belongs to Christ rather than to a denomination; it incorporates the recipient into Christ, which is precisely why the Catholic Church recognises baptised Protestants as Christians and brothers in the Lord.
Nor is the Catholic understanding of baptism “wholly unbiblical.” Christ commands the Apostles to make disciples by baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19; Peter tells his hearers to repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of their sins in Acts 2:38; Paul describes baptism as burial and resurrection with Christ in Romans 6:3–4, says that those baptised into Christ have put on Christ in Galatians 3:27, and calls it the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5. Colossians 2:12 brings baptism and faith together without difficulty, saying that Christians are buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him “through the faith of the operation of God.” Baptism is therefore not a human work offered to God as payment; it is an action of God received in faith.
Most strikingly, the very chapter I would encourage you to read carefully says, in the language of the King James Bible, “baptism doth also now save us” in 1 Peter 3:21. Peter immediately explains that he does not mean the physical washing of dirt from the body, but the answer or appeal of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Your assertion that anyone who believes baptism has a saving significance cannot belong to Christ would therefore have the curious consequence of placing St Peter outside Christianity. The Catholic position does not set baptism against Christ; it accepts the apostolic teaching that Christ acts through baptism.
Ephesians 2:8–9 is no embarrassment to Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology: salvation is by grace, through faith, as the unmerited gift of God. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that justification comes from God’s free and undeserved grace, that the initiative belongs entirely to him, and that no person can merit the initial grace of forgiveness or justification. Even the preparation by which someone turns towards God is already the work of grace. There is therefore no need for the Catholic Church to “redefine” grace in order to escape St Paul; the Church teaches what St Paul teaches, that salvation begins, continues and reaches fulfilment through the gracious action of God.
The problem is that you stop reading Ephesians at verse 9. Verse 10 continues: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Good works are not an alternative currency with which Catholics purchase salvation; they are the fruit of grace working within the believer. Paul speaks in Galatians 5:6 of “faith which worketh by love,” while Philippians 2:12–13 tells Christians to work out their salvation because it is God who works within them both to will and to do. James is even more explicit: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” and “faith without works is dead” in James 2:24 and 2:26. Catholic theology holds these passages together. We cannot save ourselves, earn the Cross or place God in our debt; nevertheless, the faith which receives grace must become a living faith, active in charity, obedience, repentance and perseverance. Benedict XVI described precisely this relationship when he explained that freely given justification through faith produces the fruits of the Spirit and expresses itself through love.
Your appeal to Catholics to abandon “their priesthood, baptism, and good works” creates a false opposition between Christ and the means through which Christ chose to minister to his people. Catholics do not believe that priests replace Christ, compete with Christ or add another mediator beside Christ. Catholic teaching is explicit that Christ alone is the true priest and that the ministerial priesthood participates in and serves his one priesthood without diminishing its uniqueness. The Church also teaches the common priesthood of every baptised Christian, drawing directly upon 1 Peter 2:5 and 2:9.
The ministerial priesthood also has an obvious scriptural foundation. Christ sends the Apostles as the Father sent him and gives them authority to forgive or retain sins in John 20:21–23; he commands them at the Last Supper to “do this in remembrance of me” in Luke 22:19; Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church in Acts 14:23; Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every city in Titus 1:5; James instructs the sick to summon the elders of the Church for prayer and anointing in James 5:14. One may dispute the Catholic understanding of these ministries, but one cannot reasonably claim that an ordained ministry exercising sacramental and pastoral authority was invented by Rome in defiance of Scripture.
Your historical claim about infant baptism is equally difficult to sustain. The New Testament records the baptism of entire households in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16; Paul also links baptism with circumcision, the covenantal sign given to infants, in Colossians 2:11–12. No single household passage proves that babies were present, but neither does Scripture contain the Baptist rule that only a person capable of making an adult verbal profession may be baptised. The exclusion of children from the New Covenant has to be imported into the text.
Historically, infant baptism was already sufficiently established around the year 200 for Tertullian to argue that it should sometimes be delayed; his objection refers to sponsors speaking for children and therefore demonstrates that the practice existed well before the emergence of anything resembling the medieval Catholic system you appear to have in mind. By the middle of the third century, Cyprian and a council of bishops were debating whether an infant should wait until the eighth day after birth, not whether infants should be baptised at all. Infant baptism was therefore neither a late Roman device nor an institutional scheme devised to control salvation. It also remains the practice of Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and much of the Reformed tradition, so your argument would place a considerable portion of historic Protestant Christianity outside Christianity as well.
You then describe Catholicism as narcissistic because it speaks of Protestants as “separated.” The term does not mean that every Protestant is separated from Christ, devoid of grace or destined for damnation; it means that Christians who share baptism and faith in Christ nevertheless remain divided in doctrine, sacramental life and ecclesial communion. That division is simply a historical and theological fact. The Catholic Church acknowledges that Scripture, faith, hope, charity, grace and genuine Christian holiness exist outside her visible boundaries; she accepts baptised Protestants with respect and affection as brothers and sisters in the Lord and calls Catholics to recognise what the Holy Spirit has accomplished among them.
There is considerable irony in calling that position narcissistic while simultaneously declaring that Catholics are not Christians, do not belong to Christ, practise an enemy religion and must submit to your own interpretation before they can enter the Christian family. Every Christian tradition necessarily has an ecclesiology and an account of doctrinal authority; your position is no less centred upon a particular tradition merely because you have declined to name it as such. In practice, you have made one strand of post-Reformation evangelical interpretation the tribunal before which the Christianity of the Apostles, the Fathers, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and much of historic Protestantism must appear.
The cry of “Sola Scriptura!” does not resolve this difficulty. Scripture never teaches that Scripture is the Christian’s sole infallible authority interpreted independently of the apostolic Church. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they received “whether by word, or our epistle” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15; he calls the Church, rather than the biblical text considered in isolation, “the pillar and ground of the truth” in 1 Timothy 3:15; Acts 15 shows a doctrinal controversy resolved by the Apostles and elders meeting in council; Peter warns in 2 Peter 3:16 that unstable people twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. Catholics do not reject Scripture. We reject the proposition that an individual’s interpretation of Scripture becomes self-authenticating merely because he places the Latin word sola before it.
More importantly, however, you have misunderstood the purpose of the article. I did not suggest that the Reformation was irrelevant, that our theological disagreements should be concealed, or that Catholics and Protestants must pretend to believe the same things. I wrote explicitly that the differences concerning justification, authority and the sacraments are serious, and that serious Catholics and serious Protestants should continue to argue about them with precision and charity. My argument was that those who confess the same Triune God, the divinity, incarnation, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, the necessity of grace and the hope of eternal life should recognise one another as estranged members of the Christian household rather than members of entirely different religions.
Your response confirms rather than refutes that argument. Faced with an appeal for Christians to disagree accurately, seriously and charitably, you misrepresent Catholic teaching on grace, baptism, works and priesthood; you pronounce those who hold it incapable of belonging to Christ; you call the Catholic Church the enemy of Christianity; and you conclude with a row of confessional slogans. This is precisely the habit I described, in which inherited polemic takes the place of theological understanding and the boundaries of Christianity are drawn ever more tightly around one’s own circle. I would therefore suggest you read the whole of 1 Peter 3 and absorb it. Verse 21 directly challenges your theology of baptism; verses 8 and 9 command Christians to have compassion for one another, to love as brethren, to be tender-hearted and courteous, without returning accusation for accusation; verses 15 and 16 instruct us to defend the hope within us with meekness, reverence and a clear conscience. The chapter addresses both the substance of your argument and the spirit in which you have made it.
Catholics are not isolating Protestants from Christ. We continue, despite profound disagreement, to recognise baptised Protestants as Christian brethren. It is your position which creates the isolation, because it requires you to deny the Christianity of those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and have been baptised into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The pride lies in assuming that your own interpretation grants you authority to expel them from the household of faith; the tragedy is that, while doing so, you mistake the narrowing of your fellowship for fidelity to the Gospel.
Roman Catholics aren't Christians because they worship not only God (in his three aspects) but also Mary and the Pope. If you have gods in addition to Christ/Holy Ghost/The Lord then you aren't a Christian, pretty much by definition. I suspect that that rules out Orthodox Catholics too. (And any other claimed Christians who worship Saints, Relics, and so on.)
Are Unitarians better Christians than Trinitarians? Lord knows - I don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity and suspect that nobody else does either.
Furthermore Catholics do not 'worship' the Pope. That you would say this indicates that you know sweet fanny Adam about Catholicism or what a Pope is or what the Pope does....
Your Copeland is far more of a spiritual dictator than any Pope since the middle ages.
Again... argue in good faith or not at all.
And frankly your disrespect for your fellow Christians based in such falsehoods crosses rhe line from valid debate and criticism into disrespectful and rude bigotry
Incorrect. Roman Catholics do NOT 'worship' Mary or the saints. They ask for intercession as I am sure you do when you ask a friend to pray for you and yours or when you offer to pray for a other.
I'm perfectly alright with you disagreeing with aspects of Catholicism but only if you get your facts right. I am not willing or inclined to engage with a discussion with someone who deliberately misrepresents Catholicism.
Claims that Catholics "worship" competing entities, aren't going away any time soon. They have more in common with football loyalties, a taunt and provocation, than exegesis. No matter how often Catholics explain the difference between recognising the Mother of God as part of the Christian story, and a mere human cypher with no agency, understanding that role requires a level of open-mindedness in a discussion framed in pejoratives.
To be fair, we Catholics don't do ourselves any favours when discussing religious iconography, blurring the boundaries between devotional object as art, and the thing it represents. This may be an elision between the role of the Eucharist in Catholicism, and manifest symbolism elsewhere in the church. It could also be a suspicion of beauty as beguiling and seductive, in a mindset defined by the austerity and opposition.
I think this is largely right, particularly the comparison with football loyalties. “Catholics worship Mary” often functions less as a theological proposition than as a tribal signal; it persists because it is useful as a boundary marker, even after the distinction between worship, veneration and honour has been repeatedly explained. I would, however, make one important distinction. The Eucharist and religious iconography do not occupy adjacent theological categories in Catholicism. The Eucharist is not a devotional object which represents Christ; it is, in Catholic teaching, the sacramental presence of Christ himself. An icon, statue or crucifix is precisely a representation, and the honour shown before it passes to the person represented. The distinction between adoration owed to God alone, the veneration accorded to the saints, and the particular honour given to the Mother of God is not an attempt to blur worship, but to preserve its proper object.
You are also right that Catholics can sometimes speak carelessly about devotional practices, particularly when familiar habits are explained to people who do not share the theological framework beneath them. Even so, I am not convinced that imprecision on the Catholic side accounts for the persistence of the accusation. Many of those who repeat it have already been given the distinction and simply reject it, because their theology has no place for the communion of saints, intercession, sacramental mediation or the Christian use of sacred images.
The Marian question is also deeper than recognising Mary as “part of the Christian story.” She is not a competing object of devotion, nor is she merely an illustrative character within the narrative. She is the Mother of God because the child she bore is God incarnate; she is the woman who freely assented to the divine summons, the first disciple, and the figure in whom the Church sees faithful human cooperation with grace. None of this displaces Christ. It depends entirely upon who Christ is. There is undoubtedly, as you suggest, a suspicion of beauty within some Protestant traditions, inherited from iconoclasm and from a fear that the senses can beguile the mind. Catholic Christianity begins elsewhere, with the Incarnation: matter can bear grace, beauty can disclose truth, and the visible world can direct us beyond itself. The danger of idolatry is real, but the answer to the misuse of created things is not to deny that creation can become a means through which the invisible God is contemplated.
The larger problem is that these arguments are rarely conducted at that level. “You worship Mary” is usually not the conclusion of an examination of Nicaea, the Incarnation or the distinction between latria and dulia; it is a taunt inherited from controversy. That is why explanation alone often fails. The accusation is doing social and sectarian work which has very little to do with exegesis.
Well said. My points were not from an exclusively UK perspective, but are certainly informed by the nuances of British history. To be clear, I wasn't forming an equivalence between the Eucharist and symbolism elsewhere in the church, quite the contrary, and I could have been clearer.
In terms of signification, the language of signs is a useful starting point, though not exhaustive:
the iconic resembles the thing it represents (a statue of a saint, for example), the indexical has an indirect relationship (incense, genuflection) and the symbolic is an abstraction, having currency only within the culture (Gothic architecture). These are often blurred, both by Catholics and their critics, and the elision has consequences. The Eucharist stands outside the language of symbols, but signs have accrued around Holy Communion, e.g. the use of a monstrance. Reformers characterised the trappings as ornament, mere fancy, and what they represent as equally suspect. The result is that "symbolic" has become a catch-all term, and Anglicans in particular have widely differing views on what that means, even within a congregation.
I was being deliberately provocative about Mary being "part of the Christian story", because her role (should Her be capitalised?) is one defined by the nuance of language as much as belief. Mary as co-Redemptrix is unproblematic and highly contested based on the precise inference of co-: with, or equal to as in co-worker. Protestants, by and large, see Mary as, if not an entirely non-playing character in the story of our redemption, then having a walk on part with no observable agency, and all subsequent dogmas as novelty. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, she is Theotokos - "God-bearer", and her fiat has particular resonance.
The playwright Dennis Potter's observation could neatly serve for the divide in Anglophone Christianity - "the problem with words is you don't know whose mouth they have been in".
As a Scottish Catholic who grew up in the Faith ,and continues to practice it in my old age ( i'm 79 ) ,i can truthfully say that we were never taught ,either in school or in Church to " hate " protestants or indeed Jews. We were taught tolerance ,love and forgiveness ,and Catholics do not " worship " the Pope. He us Christ's Vicar on Earth ,a successor to St Peter to whom Jesus said " Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it. Whstsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven ". Mary ( our Lady ) is the mother of Christ and ,by Christ's instruction on the Cross ,is now our mother also. We do not "worship" Mary or the Saints ,we ask them to intercede for us with the Lord !! The Catholic ( ie Universal ) Church was the FIRST Christian Church and it's sad and dangerous to deny this FACT ,thereby continuing to cause division just when the rise of Islam is a danger to the world ,indeed all of humanity. May God protect us all.🙏🙏🙏
That was my experience both growing up in the Kirk and in the Episcopal Scottish Church. I certainly experienced none of this when I converted to Catholicism.
This is why I mention the cultural side of it in my article because the sectarian division is, at the end of the day, a badge for tribalism and as you know ... us Scots and Ulster Scots could start a fight over an empty paper bag!
I think there can be a lot of going through the motions, and implicit tribalism to boot. While this is common in many institutions, Christians do need to try and avoid it and show a better way.
I agree Christians need to focus on real enemies rather than replaying conflicts from several centuries ago. As you say, it's right that matters of essential doctrine are debated, but it's more essential in these days to focus our aim on those religious and secular forces that would undermine the whole Christian heritage on which our civilisation rests. Not so sure, incidentally, that Catholics are more accepting of Protestants than vice versa, but that's another matter! The key thing is to show that we truly love our neighbours by pointing towards that embodied Truth by which everything in this world sustains.
Indeed, viz Catholic tolerance. My point is very much aimed at the evangelical Baptists in that part of the world and in that community. There are ample numbers of Catholics who need to understand this as well and I do factor them into other articles. My experience is that some Catholics are appallingly chatecised and I have certainly noticed very poor knowledge of Scripture with some. This isn't unique to Catholics. If I recall my own childhood in both the Kirk and the Scottish Episcopalian Church beyond basic Sunday school Bible stories there wasn't any real teaching about what Christianity IS and what it believes. Perhaps jn an.almost uniform Christian Nation this was assumed. Either way cradle whatever - you - ares are often poorly versed in Christianity unless a conscious attempt to continue education into youth and adulthood takes place.
The most obvious pointer here is when Christians who attend church regularly who go through the creeds liturgy and prayers, then conduct themselves in less than Christian ways. All too often it's pride, that most deadly and destructive of sins and one which we all have.. including me jn some of this comment.
As one who grew up as a Baptist in Northern Ireland, became an Anglican (SEC) in my thirties and is finally a Roman Catholic living in England, I am well placed to understand the viewpoints of many strands of the Christian Church. Long held prejudices are hard to shift, but I think the hymnwriter hits the right note: “Who serves my Father as a son, is surely kin to me.”
You say "The Catholic Church has never ceased to regard validly baptised Protestants as Christians, albeit separated". This is the crux of the matter. Roman Catholicism regards baptism, which it as an organisation provides, as being the key to being a Christian. This is wholly unbiblical. Anyone who believes this is not a Christian, and does not belong to Christ. The scripture say it plainly in many ways, but perhaps most unequivocally in Eph. 2:8,9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” No amount of catholic redefinition of “grace” can dilute the meaning of this.
I implore all Catholics to turn away from their priesthood, baptism, and good works as a means of eternal salvation because "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". The only answer is faith in Christ alone "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Catholicism holds to a form of shared narcissism and arrogance in which it is the centre of Christianity and everyone else is "separated" from it. In reality the Roman Catholic departed from Christianity when it adopted infant baptism and so claimed the control over eternal salvation through it so-called priesthood. Todd Friel is right. The Catholic system does sit outside Christianity altogether. Roman Catholicism is the enemy of Christianity. Sola scriptura! Sola fide! Sola gratia!
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your comment deserves a serious answer, partly because it contains several substantial misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, but also because the manner in which you express those misunderstandings illustrates almost precisely the sectarian reflex that my article was addressing.
You begin by claiming that Catholicism regards baptism, “which it as an organisation provides,” as the key to being a Christian. This is mistaken at the most basic level. The Catholic Church does not regard baptism as an institutional commodity which Rome controls, nor does it claim that a ceremony performed by Catholic clergy earns salvation for its recipient. Indeed, the fact that the Church recognises valid Protestant baptism should immediately have alerted you to the weakness of that argument. A person baptised with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is not ordinarily baptised again upon becoming Catholic, because baptism belongs to Christ rather than to a denomination; it incorporates the recipient into Christ, which is precisely why the Catholic Church recognises baptised Protestants as Christians and brothers in the Lord.
Nor is the Catholic understanding of baptism “wholly unbiblical.” Christ commands the Apostles to make disciples by baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19; Peter tells his hearers to repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of their sins in Acts 2:38; Paul describes baptism as burial and resurrection with Christ in Romans 6:3–4, says that those baptised into Christ have put on Christ in Galatians 3:27, and calls it the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:5. Colossians 2:12 brings baptism and faith together without difficulty, saying that Christians are buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him “through the faith of the operation of God.” Baptism is therefore not a human work offered to God as payment; it is an action of God received in faith.
Most strikingly, the very chapter I would encourage you to read carefully says, in the language of the King James Bible, “baptism doth also now save us” in 1 Peter 3:21. Peter immediately explains that he does not mean the physical washing of dirt from the body, but the answer or appeal of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Your assertion that anyone who believes baptism has a saving significance cannot belong to Christ would therefore have the curious consequence of placing St Peter outside Christianity. The Catholic position does not set baptism against Christ; it accepts the apostolic teaching that Christ acts through baptism.
Ephesians 2:8–9 is no embarrassment to Catholic theology. It is Catholic theology: salvation is by grace, through faith, as the unmerited gift of God. The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that justification comes from God’s free and undeserved grace, that the initiative belongs entirely to him, and that no person can merit the initial grace of forgiveness or justification. Even the preparation by which someone turns towards God is already the work of grace. There is therefore no need for the Catholic Church to “redefine” grace in order to escape St Paul; the Church teaches what St Paul teaches, that salvation begins, continues and reaches fulfilment through the gracious action of God.
The problem is that you stop reading Ephesians at verse 9. Verse 10 continues: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Good works are not an alternative currency with which Catholics purchase salvation; they are the fruit of grace working within the believer. Paul speaks in Galatians 5:6 of “faith which worketh by love,” while Philippians 2:12–13 tells Christians to work out their salvation because it is God who works within them both to will and to do. James is even more explicit: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” and “faith without works is dead” in James 2:24 and 2:26. Catholic theology holds these passages together. We cannot save ourselves, earn the Cross or place God in our debt; nevertheless, the faith which receives grace must become a living faith, active in charity, obedience, repentance and perseverance. Benedict XVI described precisely this relationship when he explained that freely given justification through faith produces the fruits of the Spirit and expresses itself through love.
Your appeal to Catholics to abandon “their priesthood, baptism, and good works” creates a false opposition between Christ and the means through which Christ chose to minister to his people. Catholics do not believe that priests replace Christ, compete with Christ or add another mediator beside Christ. Catholic teaching is explicit that Christ alone is the true priest and that the ministerial priesthood participates in and serves his one priesthood without diminishing its uniqueness. The Church also teaches the common priesthood of every baptised Christian, drawing directly upon 1 Peter 2:5 and 2:9.
The ministerial priesthood also has an obvious scriptural foundation. Christ sends the Apostles as the Father sent him and gives them authority to forgive or retain sins in John 20:21–23; he commands them at the Last Supper to “do this in remembrance of me” in Luke 22:19; Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church in Acts 14:23; Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every city in Titus 1:5; James instructs the sick to summon the elders of the Church for prayer and anointing in James 5:14. One may dispute the Catholic understanding of these ministries, but one cannot reasonably claim that an ordained ministry exercising sacramental and pastoral authority was invented by Rome in defiance of Scripture.
Your historical claim about infant baptism is equally difficult to sustain. The New Testament records the baptism of entire households in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16; Paul also links baptism with circumcision, the covenantal sign given to infants, in Colossians 2:11–12. No single household passage proves that babies were present, but neither does Scripture contain the Baptist rule that only a person capable of making an adult verbal profession may be baptised. The exclusion of children from the New Covenant has to be imported into the text.
Historically, infant baptism was already sufficiently established around the year 200 for Tertullian to argue that it should sometimes be delayed; his objection refers to sponsors speaking for children and therefore demonstrates that the practice existed well before the emergence of anything resembling the medieval Catholic system you appear to have in mind. By the middle of the third century, Cyprian and a council of bishops were debating whether an infant should wait until the eighth day after birth, not whether infants should be baptised at all. Infant baptism was therefore neither a late Roman device nor an institutional scheme devised to control salvation. It also remains the practice of Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and much of the Reformed tradition, so your argument would place a considerable portion of historic Protestant Christianity outside Christianity as well.
You then describe Catholicism as narcissistic because it speaks of Protestants as “separated.” The term does not mean that every Protestant is separated from Christ, devoid of grace or destined for damnation; it means that Christians who share baptism and faith in Christ nevertheless remain divided in doctrine, sacramental life and ecclesial communion. That division is simply a historical and theological fact. The Catholic Church acknowledges that Scripture, faith, hope, charity, grace and genuine Christian holiness exist outside her visible boundaries; she accepts baptised Protestants with respect and affection as brothers and sisters in the Lord and calls Catholics to recognise what the Holy Spirit has accomplished among them.
There is considerable irony in calling that position narcissistic while simultaneously declaring that Catholics are not Christians, do not belong to Christ, practise an enemy religion and must submit to your own interpretation before they can enter the Christian family. Every Christian tradition necessarily has an ecclesiology and an account of doctrinal authority; your position is no less centred upon a particular tradition merely because you have declined to name it as such. In practice, you have made one strand of post-Reformation evangelical interpretation the tribunal before which the Christianity of the Apostles, the Fathers, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and much of historic Protestantism must appear.
cont....
The cry of “Sola Scriptura!” does not resolve this difficulty. Scripture never teaches that Scripture is the Christian’s sole infallible authority interpreted independently of the apostolic Church. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they received “whether by word, or our epistle” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15; he calls the Church, rather than the biblical text considered in isolation, “the pillar and ground of the truth” in 1 Timothy 3:15; Acts 15 shows a doctrinal controversy resolved by the Apostles and elders meeting in council; Peter warns in 2 Peter 3:16 that unstable people twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. Catholics do not reject Scripture. We reject the proposition that an individual’s interpretation of Scripture becomes self-authenticating merely because he places the Latin word sola before it.
More importantly, however, you have misunderstood the purpose of the article. I did not suggest that the Reformation was irrelevant, that our theological disagreements should be concealed, or that Catholics and Protestants must pretend to believe the same things. I wrote explicitly that the differences concerning justification, authority and the sacraments are serious, and that serious Catholics and serious Protestants should continue to argue about them with precision and charity. My argument was that those who confess the same Triune God, the divinity, incarnation, death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, the necessity of grace and the hope of eternal life should recognise one another as estranged members of the Christian household rather than members of entirely different religions.
Your response confirms rather than refutes that argument. Faced with an appeal for Christians to disagree accurately, seriously and charitably, you misrepresent Catholic teaching on grace, baptism, works and priesthood; you pronounce those who hold it incapable of belonging to Christ; you call the Catholic Church the enemy of Christianity; and you conclude with a row of confessional slogans. This is precisely the habit I described, in which inherited polemic takes the place of theological understanding and the boundaries of Christianity are drawn ever more tightly around one’s own circle. I would therefore suggest you read the whole of 1 Peter 3 and absorb it. Verse 21 directly challenges your theology of baptism; verses 8 and 9 command Christians to have compassion for one another, to love as brethren, to be tender-hearted and courteous, without returning accusation for accusation; verses 15 and 16 instruct us to defend the hope within us with meekness, reverence and a clear conscience. The chapter addresses both the substance of your argument and the spirit in which you have made it.
Catholics are not isolating Protestants from Christ. We continue, despite profound disagreement, to recognise baptised Protestants as Christian brethren. It is your position which creates the isolation, because it requires you to deny the Christianity of those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and have been baptised into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The pride lies in assuming that your own interpretation grants you authority to expel them from the household of faith; the tragedy is that, while doing so, you mistake the narrowing of your fellowship for fidelity to the Gospel.
Roman Catholics aren't Christians because they worship not only God (in his three aspects) but also Mary and the Pope. If you have gods in addition to Christ/Holy Ghost/The Lord then you aren't a Christian, pretty much by definition. I suspect that that rules out Orthodox Catholics too. (And any other claimed Christians who worship Saints, Relics, and so on.)
Are Unitarians better Christians than Trinitarians? Lord knows - I don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity and suspect that nobody else does either.
Furthermore Catholics do not 'worship' the Pope. That you would say this indicates that you know sweet fanny Adam about Catholicism or what a Pope is or what the Pope does....
Your Copeland is far more of a spiritual dictator than any Pope since the middle ages.
Again... argue in good faith or not at all.
And frankly your disrespect for your fellow Christians based in such falsehoods crosses rhe line from valid debate and criticism into disrespectful and rude bigotry
Incorrect. Roman Catholics do NOT 'worship' Mary or the saints. They ask for intercession as I am sure you do when you ask a friend to pray for you and yours or when you offer to pray for a other.
I'm perfectly alright with you disagreeing with aspects of Catholicism but only if you get your facts right. I am not willing or inclined to engage with a discussion with someone who deliberately misrepresents Catholicism.
Claims that Catholics "worship" competing entities, aren't going away any time soon. They have more in common with football loyalties, a taunt and provocation, than exegesis. No matter how often Catholics explain the difference between recognising the Mother of God as part of the Christian story, and a mere human cypher with no agency, understanding that role requires a level of open-mindedness in a discussion framed in pejoratives.
To be fair, we Catholics don't do ourselves any favours when discussing religious iconography, blurring the boundaries between devotional object as art, and the thing it represents. This may be an elision between the role of the Eucharist in Catholicism, and manifest symbolism elsewhere in the church. It could also be a suspicion of beauty as beguiling and seductive, in a mindset defined by the austerity and opposition.
I think this is largely right, particularly the comparison with football loyalties. “Catholics worship Mary” often functions less as a theological proposition than as a tribal signal; it persists because it is useful as a boundary marker, even after the distinction between worship, veneration and honour has been repeatedly explained. I would, however, make one important distinction. The Eucharist and religious iconography do not occupy adjacent theological categories in Catholicism. The Eucharist is not a devotional object which represents Christ; it is, in Catholic teaching, the sacramental presence of Christ himself. An icon, statue or crucifix is precisely a representation, and the honour shown before it passes to the person represented. The distinction between adoration owed to God alone, the veneration accorded to the saints, and the particular honour given to the Mother of God is not an attempt to blur worship, but to preserve its proper object.
You are also right that Catholics can sometimes speak carelessly about devotional practices, particularly when familiar habits are explained to people who do not share the theological framework beneath them. Even so, I am not convinced that imprecision on the Catholic side accounts for the persistence of the accusation. Many of those who repeat it have already been given the distinction and simply reject it, because their theology has no place for the communion of saints, intercession, sacramental mediation or the Christian use of sacred images.
The Marian question is also deeper than recognising Mary as “part of the Christian story.” She is not a competing object of devotion, nor is she merely an illustrative character within the narrative. She is the Mother of God because the child she bore is God incarnate; she is the woman who freely assented to the divine summons, the first disciple, and the figure in whom the Church sees faithful human cooperation with grace. None of this displaces Christ. It depends entirely upon who Christ is. There is undoubtedly, as you suggest, a suspicion of beauty within some Protestant traditions, inherited from iconoclasm and from a fear that the senses can beguile the mind. Catholic Christianity begins elsewhere, with the Incarnation: matter can bear grace, beauty can disclose truth, and the visible world can direct us beyond itself. The danger of idolatry is real, but the answer to the misuse of created things is not to deny that creation can become a means through which the invisible God is contemplated.
The larger problem is that these arguments are rarely conducted at that level. “You worship Mary” is usually not the conclusion of an examination of Nicaea, the Incarnation or the distinction between latria and dulia; it is a taunt inherited from controversy. That is why explanation alone often fails. The accusation is doing social and sectarian work which has very little to do with exegesis.
Well said. My points were not from an exclusively UK perspective, but are certainly informed by the nuances of British history. To be clear, I wasn't forming an equivalence between the Eucharist and symbolism elsewhere in the church, quite the contrary, and I could have been clearer.
In terms of signification, the language of signs is a useful starting point, though not exhaustive:
the iconic resembles the thing it represents (a statue of a saint, for example), the indexical has an indirect relationship (incense, genuflection) and the symbolic is an abstraction, having currency only within the culture (Gothic architecture). These are often blurred, both by Catholics and their critics, and the elision has consequences. The Eucharist stands outside the language of symbols, but signs have accrued around Holy Communion, e.g. the use of a monstrance. Reformers characterised the trappings as ornament, mere fancy, and what they represent as equally suspect. The result is that "symbolic" has become a catch-all term, and Anglicans in particular have widely differing views on what that means, even within a congregation.
I was being deliberately provocative about Mary being "part of the Christian story", because her role (should Her be capitalised?) is one defined by the nuance of language as much as belief. Mary as co-Redemptrix is unproblematic and highly contested based on the precise inference of co-: with, or equal to as in co-worker. Protestants, by and large, see Mary as, if not an entirely non-playing character in the story of our redemption, then having a walk on part with no observable agency, and all subsequent dogmas as novelty. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, she is Theotokos - "God-bearer", and her fiat has particular resonance.
The playwright Dennis Potter's observation could neatly serve for the divide in Anglophone Christianity - "the problem with words is you don't know whose mouth they have been in".