The Catholic vs. Protestant dispute follows a logically predictable pattern when there's a large scale schism in a religion and where one is easily identified as a new or rebel faction. The very name "protestant" is derived from "protest", so it is indisputably the rebel of the two.
The old faction has the luxury of appealing to tradition as their source of authority. After all, if God really did establish this particular faith, then the faction that represents traditional authority must be the one on the side of God, right?
The new or rebel faction typically counters this claim by appealing to a nostalgic dreamscape of an "early church", one which is much different from the current incarnation represented by the old faction. The charge is that the old sect has lost the original mission and become corrupted by whatever taint can be easily imagined (outside influences, political power, greed, etc.). Thus, the rebel group isn't really rebelling against God but rather FOR God, hearkening back to the "early church" and getting back to the ways they imagine God had originally intended.
Now why God would sit by for a thousand or so years and watch as his sacred church got defiled and corrupted is a question that is glossed over.
Of course, the whole nostalgic dreamscape has no basis in historical reality. The actual history of Christianity doesn't reflect Hollywood's vision. According to what information we have, there was a wild variety of different churches with conflicting ideas on what Jesus was and what he had to say.
As an aside, we see the same argument in Trinitarian Christianity vs. Islam. Muslims, like Protestants, fantasize about a proto-Islamic church established by Jesus, which the dastardly heretic Paul managed to corrupt in just a few years after Jesus flew up into the sky. It doesn't matter that there is no historical basis for the claims. Folklore will substitute nicely for historical documentation in the minds of the faithful.
But to get back to Protestants, it's easy to see why they must reject Catholics as "True Christians". Their own theological legitimacy depends on it. To acknowledge that the Catholic Church represents a legitimate brand of Christianity is to admit that their own rebellion wasn't legitimate.
Putting Catholicism and Protestantism on equal theological footing, assuming that Christianity really was divinely established, means the Catholics can play the appeal to tradition card and they win!
The old faction has the luxury of appealing to tradition as their source of authority. After all, if God really did establish this particular faith, then the faction that represents traditional authority must be the one on the side of God, right?
The new or rebel faction typically counters this claim by appealing to a nostalgic dreamscape of an "early church", one which is much different from the current incarnation represented by the old faction. The charge is that the old sect has lost the original mission and become corrupted by whatever taint can be easily imagined (outside influences, political power, greed, etc.). Thus, the rebel group isn't really rebelling against God but rather FOR God, hearkening back to the "early church" and getting back to the ways they imagine God had originally intended.
Now why God would sit by for a thousand or so years and watch as his sacred church got defiled and corrupted is a question that is glossed over.
Of course, the whole nostalgic dreamscape has no basis in historical reality. The actual history of Christianity doesn't reflect Hollywood's vision. According to what information we have, there was a wild variety of different churches with conflicting ideas on what Jesus was and what he had to say.
As an aside, we see the same argument in Trinitarian Christianity vs. Islam. Muslims, like Protestants, fantasize about a proto-Islamic church established by Jesus, which the dastardly heretic Paul managed to corrupt in just a few years after Jesus flew up into the sky. It doesn't matter that there is no historical basis for the claims. Folklore will substitute nicely for historical documentation in the minds of the faithful.
But to get back to Protestants, it's easy to see why they must reject Catholics as "True Christians". Their own theological legitimacy depends on it. To acknowledge that the Catholic Church represents a legitimate brand of Christianity is to admit that their own rebellion wasn't legitimate.
Putting Catholicism and Protestantism on equal theological footing, assuming that Christianity really was divinely established, means the Catholics can play the appeal to tradition card and they win!
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
