I also believe that the average Catholic is a good Christian, whereas
it takes an exceptional Protestant to be a good Christian. But that's
all beside the point.

I was actually thinking the opposite was true…

The Catholic Church's exclusivity hurts their relationship with the Protestants I believe. I visited the Catholic church across the street and couldn't take communion with them because I have a different interpretation of John 6. I wouldn't exclude them communion because they believe that God does a miracle of transubstantiation every time communion is served.

As far as Protestants go, we have quite a variety of differences that even separate us from ourselves. The Baptists tend to think that any tradition is bad, even though we too take Scriptural understanding from the historical views of early Christians. That puts them at serious odds with the Catholic Church that seems to put tradition equal to Scripture. I think Wesley's Quadrilateral makes sense as to the order of things.

overall, the best Christians i've know have not been Protestant.  i try not to judge based on that, but it's difficult.  if i ever became Christian again, i definitely would not go with any Protestant group.  

I'll be cheap and reprint my comment from the original post...

I think that there are a few core issues that will prevent Caths and Prots from fully reconciling. I'm not talking about the veneration of Mary or transubstantiation or anything like that--those are, in the end, minor issues. No, the issues that prevent reconciliation are:


1) Hierarchy. A cardinal can tell an archbishop what to do, an archbishop can tell a bishop what to do, a bishop can do a priest what to do... I'd say the vast majority of Prot churches have no such hierarchy (with a few exceptions). Either they are governed by a convention, synod, or council of pastors/priests, who make decisions together as equals, or they hold to the autonomy of the local congregation, which makes decisions together as equals, or they are governed by a local body of elders, which makes decisions together as equals. Even the Orthodox church does not have hierarchy in the same sense: as it was explained to me, a patriarch is only a particularly respected priest, and has no actual authority over other priests to tell them what to do, but only respect in that his advice carries more weight--Sacramentally, all Orthodox bishops are equal.

2) The Supremacy of Rome. This was, of course, the driving issue behind the Great Schism, centuries before there was such animal as a Protestant. The issue is that the bishop of Rome claimed supremacy over all other bishops and patriarchs, and the ability to change the Creed without the agreement of the whole Church, a claim obviously not universally recognized, particularly by the churches and patriarchs of Constantinople. I cannot see that reconciliation would be possible without requiring Protestants to do something they will not do: acknowledge the bishop of Rome as supreme over all other bishops and presbyters.

I agree with you, that there needs to be some blending, that each side needs some of what the other's got...

I will disagree with you, however, that necessarily the "average Catholic is a good Christian..." That may be a regional thing--I don't know what area you live in, but in areas where it's not popular to be Catholic, your average Catholic is more likely to be a good Christian. I live in a Catholic-heavy area, though (Long Island), where there's two Catholic churches for every one of any other denomination. And...this is entirely anecdotal, but I see a lot more "cultural Catholics" than not--those who were raised Catholic, who go to Mass twice a year, and proceed to do or believe whatever they want without allowing Jesus to affect their daily lives. (Think Michael Corleone.) I still see plenty Catholics who are good Christians but there's not enough of them here to say they're the average.

@ChrisRusso@xanga - ""cultural Catholics" than not--those who were
raised Catholic, who go to Mass twice a year, and proceed to do or
believe whatever they want without allowing Jesus to affect their daily
lives. (Think Michael Corleone.)"

Agh!! Sad, but true. I'm Catholic, and I will admit that most Catholics are like this.

@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - In a lot of ways I agree.  I don't think it's a bad thing to have various forms of churches (liturgical, charismatic) or even a range of theological views (some churches that permit women to teach, others only men).  The unity that is needed isn't a one-size-fits-all church, but the admission that all these congregational and even denominational bodies are the church.

@SirNickDon@xanga - "The unity that is needed isn't a one-size-fits-all church, but the admission that all these congregational and even denominational bodies 

the church." --now --that's more like it

@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - I always think of it the other way around.  Any Catholic who is not truly Christian is only making a show of being a Catholic.  Same with Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.  All true Catholics are Christians - we just can't tell who's a true Catholic.  

@SirNickDon@xanga - I have a question for you Mr Nick sir...I saw you in my footprints, on my pulse this morning. 

I think there are ways each group need to respect one another, but I don't think there can be unity until the second coming of Christ.  Unity would mean compromising what each group believes about the Bible. I think we should respect and listen to one another. I love that God speaks to each of us through the Word of God, but not always the same way.  Since each of us is different, God speaks to each heart differently.

Only God knows if the person is a true Christian by looking upon the heart of each of us, no matter if Catholic, Anabaptist or Protestant.

@pamilvr@xanga - now you are an interesting fellow traveler...

@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - Splits in the church should be avoided at all costs, and almost every time its a pride issue more than anything. There are, of course, extreme cases in which a church split is good--you obviously should not stay at a church that stones divorcees, or a church that believes Jesus is a magical unicorn blessed with the ability to appear as human. The ridiculous number of church splits that have happened in the past couple of centuries (and continue to happen now) speaks more to our inability to openly discuss major issues, to our stubbornness, and to our pride. If you can justify not being a part of a specific church (whether protestant or catholic), you better believe that said church's doctrine precludes it's congregation from being saved. If you believe Catholics are going to heaven you have absolutely no reason not to be catholic. If you believe protestants are going to heaven you have absolutely no reason to be protestant. If you believe members of both churches can be saved (as I do), you start to see that their insistence on separation is ridiculous.

@llamalima@xanga - In answer to your question about why the Anababtists were so hated by both the Catholic church and the Protestants, let me try to explain, since I am in a group out of the Anabaptists (Baptist). Martin Luther did not start out to leave the Catholic church, but to change or reform what he considered grave errors that had crept into the church. (Read his thesis) His primary complaint was of the practice of "Indulgences" being sold, which is basically paying a sum for pardon of sin. After Luther seperated, he was still essentially Catholic in his beliefs, but could not tolerate what he considered wrong in the Catholic church. Zigweli (spelling?) and Calvin were similar in their hatred of Anabaptists, a primary reason being rejection of infant baptism.

Anabaptists were around centuries before the Reformation and were considered heretics by the Catholic church and later by the reformers. There are several resons why,

1. Anabaptists did not baptise infants and believed that only believers shoud be baptised and that baptism did not save a person's soul. Hence the term "Ana", which basically meant to "Re-baptise" Anyone wishing to join their church had to have a believer's baptism. They believed that salvation only came through the grace of Jesus Christ and that nothing we could do in and of ourselves could save. Baptism was a command of the Lord, but they interpreted this as only after conversion and that baptism was an outward confession of faith symbolic of Christ death, burial and resurrection. This practice was a direct challenge to the church of Rome's authority.

2. Anabaptists did not recognise the authority of the pope or Rome. Each church was basically independent and had there own pastor, approved by the church. They did not have a denominational (for lack of a better term) hierarchy.

3. They believed that the individual could go directly to God and ask forgiveness of sins and did not need to go through a priest. As the Bible says, we have an advocate in the Holy Spirit who pleads for us. I John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness"

4. Most did not believe in transubstantiation of the elements in Communion. Their reference is in the Bible that Christ died one time, for all sin. We beleive that the partaking of communion is a remembrance of what Jesus did and that Jesus was showing us how to remember what he did in the symbolic act of breaking the bread and of the cup.

5. They had been severely persecuted for their beliefs. Entire villages were wiped out. It has been hypothesied that the Anabaptists were a descendent of the Waldenese, out of the mountains in France and Switzerland. There is an ample body of writing to be found on the internet. Look up the history of the Waldenese, Mennonites and Baptists. There are a lot of historical reference in the Catholic church that goes back centuries about the "Anabaptists" and how they were thought of and treated. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions, since any opinion I may have regarding this will be biased and seem critical.

Most descendents of the Anabaptists still do not practice in their beliefs as Catholics or main line Protestant churches, leaving some confusion and dare I say, animosity yet. Some are Calvinistic in their approach, some are a mixture, the biggest bone of contention is that of predestination of the believer. I perosnally believe it is not my place to decide who is to hear the gospel, but to "preach the gospel to the whole world", as Christ commanded, and let the Lord work as he will.  

I hope this has helped you in your question. I hope not to have offended anyone, but tried to give you an answer as unbiased as I possibly can.

Dan