Again this isn’t a debate. But herewith is an attempt at equal time. For the record, I don’t mean to be so grumpy about this, but posts about religion always generate scads of email. That’s great, but sometimes I really don’t have the time to be the traffic cop for some of these debates. And as of right now, we don’t have a better system for dealing with this sort of thing. Anyway, a few representative emails:

Jonah:
Regarding your corner post “I’m not starting a debate,” I have a few bones to pick.
As a good Lutheran, I am compelled to offer that your catholic friend fails to understand that protestant religions are fundamentally different. I would even go so far as to say that they are as different from each other as each is from Catholicism. It would stand to reason, then, that discussing the works of Calvin for example with, say, a Lutheran would be as absurd as discussing them with a Catholic.

And…

I know, I know . . . You’re not trying to start a debate.
Nevertheless, let me just say that your e-mailer (Catholic vs. Protestant thing) was off-base. The reason Protestants don’t have to defend the statements of their forebears to the same extent is precisely because the leaders of Protestant denominations have not been declared “infallible” by their respective denominations. Catholics have only themselves to blame by setting themselves up as “the one, true church” and proclaiming that the words of their Popes come straight from God himself.
As far as I know, Conservatives do not make such grandiose claims.

And…

Protestant epistemology puts Scripture on the level of infallibility and
everyone else pays cash. This explains why the Protestant gladly falls
back to scripture.
Catholic epistemology puts the Scripture and Tradition (Nicea, etc and
Popes, etc) on the level of infallibility, etc.
When the Catholic quotes Luther, Calvin, etc. The Protestant can say,
“anybody can have a bad day. He goofed.” But the Catholic has to argue
around the infallibility thing.