This day saddens me because I see my Protestant brothers and sisters “celebrating” a “reformation” that has only resulted in further fracturing of Christ’s Holy Church into many divisive denominations lacking unity. Today seems like as good a day as any to point the errors of the FIVE SOLAS (which I’ve seen numerous people point to as a positive result of the reformation). Sorry, they’re not.
There are numerous articles and books which point out how the five solas fall short but for today I’ll just pull out the following relevant points from Dave Armstrong’s article 150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic
86. Flaws in original Protestant thought have led to even worse errors in reaction. E.g., extrinsic justification, devised to assure the predominance of grace, came to prohibit any outward sign of its presence (“faith vs. works,” sola fide). Calvinism, with its overly stern and rigid God, turned men off to such an extent that they became Unitarians (as in New England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries). Many founders of cults of recent origin started out Calvinist (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, etc.). One error begets another more serious and damaging error.
[…]
100. One of Protestantism’s foundational principles is sola Scriptura, which is neither biblical (see below), historical (nonexistent until the 16th century), nor logical (it’s self-defeating) idea:
101. The Bible doesn’t contain the whole of Jesus’ teaching, or Christianity, as many Protestants believe (Mk 4:33; 6:34; Lk 24:15-16,25-27; Jn 16:12; 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1:2-3).
102. Sola scriptura is an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition. An objective reading of the Bible leads one to Tradition and the Catholic Church, rather than the opposite. The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.
103. The NT was neither written nor received as the Bible at first, but only gradually so (i.e., early Christianity couldn’t have believed in sola Scriptura like current Protestants, unless it referred to the OT alone).
104. Tradition is not a bad word in the Bible. The Greek paradosis refers to something handed on from one to another (good or bad). Good (Christian) Tradition is spoken of in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6, and Col 2:8. In the latter it is contrasted with traditions of men.
105. Christian Tradition, according to the Bible, can be oral as well as written (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). St. Paul makes no qualitative distinction between the two forms.
106. The phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” in Acts and the epistles almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the Bible itself. Much of the Bible was originally oral (e.g., Jesus’ entire teaching – He wrote nothing – St. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, etc.).
107. Contrary to many Protestant claims, Jesus didn’t condemn all tradition any more than St. Paul did. E.g., Mt 15:3,6; Mk 7:8-9,13, where He condemns corrupt Pharisaical tradition only. He says “your tradition.”
108. The Greek paradidomi, or “delivering” Christian, apostolic Tradition occurs in Lk 1:1-2; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3. Paralambano, or “receiving” Christian Tradition occurs in 1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:9,12; 1 Thess 2:13.
109. The concepts of “Tradition,” “gospel,” “word of God,” “doctrine,” and “the Faith” are essentially synonymous, and all are predominantly oral. For example, in the Thessalonian epistles alone St. Paul uses 3 of these interchangeably (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Thess 2:9,13 (cf. Gal 1:9; Acts 8:14). If Tradition is a dirty word, then so is “gospel” and “word of God”.
110. St. Paul, in 1 Tim 3:15, states that the Church is the ground of truth, as in Catholicism.
111. Protestantism’s chief “proof text” for sola Scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16, fails, since it says that the Bible is profitable, but not sufficient for learning and righteousness. Catholicism agrees that it is great for these purposes, but not exclusively so, as in Protestantism. Secondly, when St. Paul speaks of “Scripture” here, the NT didn’t yet exist (not definitively for over 300 more years), thus he is referring to the OT only. This would mean that the NT wasn’t necessary for the rule of faith, if sola Scriptura were true, and if it were supposedly alluded to in this verse.
112. The above eleven factors being true, Catholicism maintains that all its Tradition is consistent with the Bible, even where the Bible is mute or merely implicit on a subject. For Catholicism, every doctrine need not be found primarily in the Bible, for this is Protestantism’s principle of sola Scriptura. On the other hand, most Catholic theologians claim that all Catholic doctrines can be found in some fashion in the Bible, in kernel form, or by (usually. extensive) inference, and that the Bible is materially sufficient for salvation, if it was all one had (on a desert island or something).
113. As thoughtful evangelical scholars have pointed out, an unthinking sola Scriptura position (sometimes referred to as solo Scriptura) can turn into “bibliolatry,” almost a worship of the Bible rather than God who is its Author. This mentality is similar to the Muslim view of Revelation, where no human elements whatsoever were involved. Sola Scriptura, rightly understood from a more sophisticated (e.g., Reformed) Protestant perspective, means that the Bible is the final authority in Christianity, not the record of all God has said and done, as many evangelicals believe.
114. Christianity is unavoidably and intrinsically historical. All the events of Jesus’ life (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.) were historical, as was the preaching of the apostles. Tradition, therefore, of some sort, is unavoidable, contrary to numerous shortsighted Protestant claims. This is true both for matters great (ecclesiology, trinitarianism, justification) and small (church budgets, type of worship music, lengths of sermons, etc.). Every denial of a particular tradition involves a bias (hidden or open) towards one’s own alternate tradition (E.g., if all Church authority is spurned, even individualistic autonomy is a “tradition,” which ought to be defended as a Christian view in some fashion).
115. Sola scriptura literally couldn’t have been true, practically speaking, for most Christians throughout history, since the movable-type printing press only appeared in the mid-15th century. Preaching and oral Tradition, along with things like devotional practices, Christian holidays, church architecture and other sacred art, were the primary carriers of the gospel for 1400 years. For all these centuries,sola Scriptura would have been regarded as an absurd abstraction and impossibility.
116. Protestantism claims that the Catholic Church has “added to the Bible.” The Catholic Church replies that it has merely drawn out the implications of the Bible (development of doctrine), and followed the understanding of the early Church, and that Protestants have “subtracted” from the Bible by ignoring large portions of it which suggest Catholic positions. Each side thinks the other is “unbiblical,” but in different ways.
117. Sola Scriptura is Protestantism’s “Achilles’ Heel.” Merely invoking sola Scriptura is no solution to the problem of authority and certainty as long as multiple interpretations exist. If the Bible were so clear that all Protestants agreed simply by reading it with a willingness to accept and follow its teaching, this would be one thing, but since this isn’t the case by a long shot (the multiplicity of denominations), sola Scriptura is a pipe-dream at best. About all that all Protestants agree on is that Catholicism is wrong, or on doctrines with which they already agree with Catholicism. Of all Protestant ideas, the “clarity” or perspicuity of the Bible is surely one of the most absurd and the most demonstrably false.
118. Put another way, having a Bible does not render one’s private judgment infallible. Interpretation is just as inevitable as tradition, and such individual interpretation is rife with one’s own traditions, and prior theological biases, whether acknowledged or not. The Catholic Church therefore, is absolutely necessary in order for true authority to exist, and to prevent confusion, error, and division.
[…]
126. Protestantism has a strong tendency of pitting faith against works (sola fide), which is a rejection of Christian Tradition and the explicit teaching of the Bible (Mt 25:31-46; Lk 18:18-25; Jn 6:27-9; Gal 5:6; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 2:12-13; 3:10-14; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Heb 5:9; Jas 1:21-7; 2:14-16). These passages also indicate that salvation is a process, not an instantaneous event, as in Protestantism.
127. Protestantism rejects the Christian Tradition and biblical teaching of merit, or differential reward for our good deeds done in faith (Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6; 1 Cor 3:8-9; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 22:12).
128. Protestantism’s teaching of extrinsic, imputed, forensic, or external justification contradicts the Christian Tradition and biblical doctrine of infused, actual, internal, transformational justification (which includes sanctification): Ps 51:2-10; 103:12; Jn 1:29; Rom 5:19; 2 Cor 5:17; Heb 1:3; 1 Jn 1:7-9.
129. Many Protestants (especially Presbyterians, Calvinists and Baptists) believe in eternal security, or, perseverance of the saints (the belief that one can’t lose his “salvation,” supposedly obtained at one point in time). This is contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible: 1 Cor 9:27; Gal 4:9; 5:1,4; Col 1:22-3; 1 Tim 1:19-20; 4:1; 5:15; Heb 3:12-14; 6:4-6; 10:26,29,39; 12:14-15; 2 Pet 2:15,20-21; Rev 2:4-5.
130. Contrary to Protestant myth and anti-Catholicism, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that one is saved by works apart from preceding and enabling grace, but that faith and works are inseparable, as in James 1 and 2. This heresy of which Catholicism is often charged, was in fact condemned by the Catholic Church at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D. It is known as Pelagianism, the view that man could save himself by his own natural efforts, without the necessary supernatural grace from God. A more moderate view, Semi-Pelagianism, was likewise condemned. To continue to accuse the Catholic Church of this heresy suggests a manifest ignorance of the history of theology, as well as the clear Catholic teaching of the Council of Trent (1545-63), available for all to see. Yet the myth is strangely prevalent.
The differences are almost uncountable because of how many sects of protestantism there is, so I wouldn’t focus so much on the differences rather than the authenticity of the beliefs. The main difference though is exactly what you said – tradition.
Catholics believe in sacred tradition alongside the Bible, where the Bible is the HIGHEST authority, but it is not the ONLY one. The Bible does not give us everything we need, and it even tells us to abide by tradition.
The reason I wholeheartedly believe Catholicism is the only true faith and the only FULLNESS of Christianity is because the doctrine and practices have not changed in any important ways since the time of Christ.
Of course it’s evolved and adapted to different cultures as it’s spread out, like how you’ll see Mass celebrated in some more regional rites in different countries where the dialect might be different and the decorations might change, but it’s still the exact same Mass everywhere on earth. But the actual faith itself, the beliefs and the doctrines and everything that makes up the core faith, has remained the exact same for 2000 years.
If you’re looking between protestantism and Catholicism I suggest looking at the early Church fathers, as well as the protestant reformation. I know when I started looking into Christian history I was totally floored at how Catholic the early Church was. I couldn’t dream of being protestant now. There are 2 quotes that I find kind of funny and relevant to this debate.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.”
“I could never join a religion founded by a Catholic priest, and that’s why I’m not protestant.” (Martin Luther was a Catholic priest)
Ooooh this is a very interesting question! Before I answer, I want to mention that I was raised mostly Southern Baptist at a church that slowly became something of a mega church as I got older – no where near Joel Olsteen levels, but it grew into that vibe lol. But it definitely is getting there if not there now today.
I also want to note that Protestantism is very, very broad: each denomination is different with its own theological traditions and history, so I am not speaking for all the different branches, only on the theology I was taught growing up.
My husband and his family – and most members of my own family – are Protestant as well, so it is still a background I am more or less familiar with just by association (plus some good friends here are Protestant of all kinds here as well and I see their stuff on my dash lol).
But yes. Here are some of the points I would like to impart onto my Catholic brethren, when they consider Protestantism:
No, believing that Genesis is historical is not being hyper-literal, and even non-creationist Protestants who are Sola Scriptura understand perfectly that the Bible is to be read according to its literary context. Protestants may have their misconceptions about the Bible but they are not ignorant on the topic either. They know perfectly well that some books of the Bible are poetry, or letters, or books of law, etc. Patronizing them on biblical theology and assuming what they believe based on origin theories or other practices helps no one. Taking the Bible “literally” for a Protestant can very well mean that they take each book literally as it is in its context to genre, historical period when written, and its relation to other books.
Protestants rely on tradition too, even if some individuals deny it because “tradition is man-made and therefor not of God!”. Each denomination has its own history, and with that, its own set of traditions that relate to their history and how they worship God. Belittling all of this to mere “angry protests” against a previous theology is too simplistic for many Protestant churches, even the “low churches”. Ask them genuine questions about the history of their church, how far back their faith history began, etc. Ask them what their statement of faith is, and why it is the way it is. It will help them think more about the context of their church/denomination, and also help clear misconceptions you have about their faith.
I mentioned this previous, but: Protestantism is not a monolith. Each denomination is different, and while some churches are related in the sense that they have similar theology, what one Protestant believes can be drastically different from another Protestant (not in terms of basic theology about God, but you get my point).
Martin Luther had his good points as well as his bad ones. I am not going to pretend that I stan this dude (y’all know I can’t stand him lol), but Protestants who look up to his work have their reasons for studying his theology. Ask them about it! In fact, do this with any Protestant theologian they reference. Get them to think about and discuss who they refer to for theology, so that you can better answer their own questions about Catholicism in ways that they understand, should the conversation go that way.
This is all I can think of right now. I may ask my husband if there is anything he would add and reblog it with his own points. Protestant followers are encouraged to share their own points as well.
Wide Spread Interests 