A lot of the problems in these inter-faith debates stem from the fact that
a. Protestants do not understand Catholic doctrine well enough.
b. Folk such as BoL and Kepha know their own doctrines very well, far more so than the average Catholic. (Which truly makes me wonder as to their respective roles in the church).
c. BoL and Kepha know also that their doctrines may be 'based' on the Bible, but are understood through the lens of tradition and church history.
d. So both sides in the debate are in fact trying to compare apples and oranges, and there is no way, except through some very serious compromise from one side or the other, that either are going to come to any agreement. Infallibility forbids compromise on the Catholic side, so if we are going to agree at all, guess what the only options are. There's two. Either Protestants compromise their own doctrinal beliefs and/or mistakenly believe that the Catholic church has changed and join the ecumenical movement and go home to mum...or BoL and Kepha leave the Catholic church and become Protestant. (Did I really just suggest that????) Agreement is impossible without one side abandoning the hermeneutic that guides Biblical understanding.
e. Catholics argue their doctrines are correct based on Bible and ongoing revelation through continuing tradition. They are absolutely correct in their explanation of Catholic doctrine. Protestants argue doctrine from the perspective of Biblical literacy if the sense is clear, and symbolism/metaphor where the sense is obviously not literal. They are absolutely correct in their explanation of Protestant doctrine...give or take the many nuances that encumber it, and the various shades and hues that distort it. But revelation within Protestantism is also progressive...but based on new information that doesn't (or shouldn't ) contradict established truth, whereas tradition within Catholicism becomes dogma, and cannot be changed, and the dogma does and often contradict previously established truth. (These are where our debates grow from). And this is where 'authority' to interpret comes in.
f. The recent agreement between Catholics and Lutherans is a classic case in point where one side has capitulated completely where it comes to soteriology, the other side merely 'appearing' to compromise. One side no longer understands their own heritage nor their own soteriological beliefs, and believe the other side has either compromised or that their founder seriously misunderstood his opponents teachings. Truth is that the agreement on justification by faith is a farce.
Honestly, I do not believe Protestants in general understand fully how Catholics officially believe salvation is attained. They simplify it to 'works based', and drop it. It is far more complicated than that. And I do not often see Catholics (such as BoL and Kepha )being too open with how it works either. They stress the parts that are Bible based, but avoid those (important ) bits that are more controversial.
For example. If I suggested that Catholics do not believe redemption is based on the death and the shedding of the blood of Christ, but on His life, and the merits of His goodness (and that of saints and martyrs etc) how many would understand where I am coming from?
The thing is, while both sides are claiming their form of religion is 'Christian', and many many people on the planet believe both sides are Christian, the truth is that Catholics and Protestants are so different, on so many levels, that only one is truly Christian. They cannot both be correct, they cannot both be Christian. Catholics on the whole recognise this but modern political correctness and the history of calling out heretics and the bloody results of doing so forbids such forthright declarations in the modern age. Protestants are not so shy being less willing to be politically correct, but are generally seen as 'haters', prejudiced, and 'anti-Catholic' and dare I suggest, "Catholiphobic". But one fact still remains. Both systems cannot be Christian.
Kepha. These discussions are not Catholic bashing. I suspect that in attempting to make it all about 'persecution', you and BoL would rather, in the interests of your church, shut down these discussions altogether.
BoL. You claim that every time a Protestant objects to Catholic doctrine, it is because he is lying. No BoL he isn't lying. I think he may differ from your understanding because he doesn't fully understand Catholic doctrine. If he did, he would have even more grounds to object, and have a more solid Biblical base for his objections. That is why you react the way you do. With Bible texts. The truth is BoL Bible texts don't fully support your doctrines without tradition. You are attempting to defend Catholicism using the Protestant hermeneutic. Impossible. And finding it doesn't work, you need to resort to personal abuse in order to give your posts more strength. Sorry, but that doesn't work either. If you defended your beliefs using tradition and the Bible, then you would get somewhere. It won't convince the Protestant he is wrong, but it will reveal fully why you are correct in your explanation of Catholic (not Christian necessarily and certainly not Protestant) doctrine.
