A letter for protestants

[philv]

I’m a recent convert into the Catholic faith. I don’t claim to be an expert at all but just a humble learner. I wrote this letter to protestants so they can understand the history and purpose of the Catholic faith long before Rome and Constantine. I hope it helps in small or large ways during your own studies. Enjoy!

Letter to the Protestants

 

[gamewell45]

I’m a recent convert into the Catholic faith. I don’t claim to be an expert at all but just a humble learner. I wrote this letter to protestants so they can understand the history and purpose of the Catholic faith long before Rome and Constantine. I hope it helps in small or large ways during your own studies. Enjoy!

Letter to the Protestants

Thanks for sharing your experience with us.

 

[CMatt25]

I see you put the word Catholic in quotation marks. Lots of your fellow Catholics seem to do that on CAF when describing fellow Catholics. One of my good Catholic friends here used to love using QMs. Maybe she’s reading this. But once I got as far as where you said other churches began after 1600 I had to pause. Some believe their faith and church go back to earlier than that. I’ve read on the United Church of Christ website, “Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not.” I know some Episcopalians consider themselves Catholic just not Roman. So I hesitate grouping them with Protestants. But it seems some Catholics consider them Protestant. So on the Episcopal Church’s website I’ve read, “The beginnings of the Church of England, from which the Episcopal Church derives, date to at least the second century, when merchants and other travelers first brought Christianity to England.” I imagine others have similar views as to their church. So as Gamewell said thanks for sharing your experience. And you indeed took the time to write a lot about what you believe. May God bless you in your new faith! Peace.

 

[PeterJohn]

Inspiring. Thank you. Keep writing.

I had been on the same journey you were. I searched for the credibility of the new testament.
The catholic church gives this credibility to the new testament, for she is a ever living organization that has kept scripture alive through thick and thin for 20 centuries. Her fathers the apostles, berthed the NT and their heirs kept their teachings and interpritations through the years and passed them down to us. Thank God for the Church. If it weren’t for her I would have discarded the validity of the NT. through her I know God, without her he is a story in a book.

 

[fred_conty]

Philv,

That was a nice thought about your pursuit of truth. Some truths are evident, especially the Blessed Eucharist, when studying earlier writtings of christians. And another is Peter.
You wrote an impressive piece. God bless.

Cmat25,

What you mentioned about other faith groups believing they too belong to the 1st century is true. But what isn’t true is that they have this same faith preserved from the earlier times, especially laying on of hands, and the true Euchrist. Belief has to match up to the facts. There are thousands of beliefs, but only one Catholic church. There are lots of beliefs started by men, but only one Catholic started by Jesus.

I love you as a brother, and also so many others of christian faith, because I know they mean well, and their intentions are noble.

Peace to you.

 

[horselvr]

philv:

Thank you so much for all of your research and welcome home!

Honestly, I have to give a big thank you to the protestants because without them and their endless questions concerning Catholicism I would probably not have become so intrenched in and have such an endless love for my own religion. I love being Catholic and learning more and more about the history of the early church. It has been very revealing to see exactly when the other religions/faiths actually were started and by whom.

 

[JonNC]

I’m a recent convert into the Catholic faith. I don’t claim to be an expert at all but just a humble learner. I wrote this letter to protestants so they can understand the history and purpose of the Catholic faith long before Rome and Constantine. I hope it helps in small or large ways during your own studies. Enjoy!

Letter to the Protestants

Thanks, Phil.

So much there that I already agree with as a Lutheran. That’s the problem with a long list of items addressed to “protestants”, which is not a communion, but a convenient shorthand term for the various distinct communions that are western, non-Catholic.

Is there any particular item you want to address out of the letter?

Jon

 

[mab23]

wow this is great im going to bookmark this!!!

Thank you good sir!

 

[hn160]

I’m a recent convert into the Catholic faith. I don’t claim to be an expert at all but just a humble learner. I wrote this letter to protestants so they can understand the history and purpose of the Catholic faith long before Rome and Constantine. I hope it helps in small or large ways during your own studies. Enjoy!

Letter to the Protestants

There is much in your letter that as a Lutheran that I can agree with, your letter is directed to the mostly non-liturgical Churches and Calvinist Churches. If the abuses in the Church would have been address in 1531 there would not have been this fracturing of the Church. As a result by the time of of the Council of Trent, both sides harden their positions, and politics got involved between the Papacy, France, The German Stated/ Holy Roman Empire along with some other countries.

 

[RileyG]

Thank you for posting this.
God Bless +

 

[UriahTheHittite]

While it is well thought out, I have to say I disagree with most of your points. I’m not going to reply to each and every one, but there are a few I want to point out.

We could get into semantics about what Christ was saying to Peter in Matthew 16:18 but just suffice it to say I believe He was saying He would found His church on the foundation of the testimony of who Christ is. Probably won’t convince anyone here of that, but there it is.

From my understanding, Catholics believe that the pope has direct communion with God and believe he is infallible, correct? In other words, there is no authority above him that challenges him on what he says or does because they believe he acts and speaks directly from God right? If Peter was the first pope, then why did he get rebuked by Paul (a relative newcomer at the time) for ignoring the Gentiles and fearing the Jews to the point of even bending the Gospel slightly (Galatians 2:11-21)? If they had revered Peter the same way the pope is revered today, Paul would have never said anything and the Gospel very would could have become Judaism with a little Christ sprinkled in. But it looks as though Paul did not see Peter as the “pope” or as this infallible man but rather as a man just like him who is capable of being deceived and who needed correction. Does the pope today receive correction and public rebuke when he’s wrong?

And John 6:47-69 is often used to back up the notion that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus when blessed. That kind of misses the point of what Jesus was trying to say there. The people were looking for someone to feed them daily because He had just fed the multitude with some bread and fish. They didn’t want the eternal blessings but just the earthly rewards. He was trying to point them back to the fact that He is the only one who will truly sustain them, not food.

But there’s the argument of, “This wasn’t symbolic because He didn’t say it was symbolic”. True, He didnt say that it was symbolic. But He also didn’t say this was symbolism:

If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. - Matthew 5:29-30

So do Catholics tear out their eyes and cut off their hands when they sin? Or is that rule only applied to John 6?

And the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to claim that Scripture is only “useful” but not final authority is a big stretch. Scripture should be everything to a Christian’s walk. Look at Psalm 119 and tell me that Scripture wasn’t as important to David as tradition.

Now I’m not trying to claim Protestantism is God’s only way necessarily. I hate labels and don’t consider myself a “Protestant”. I’m a Christian.

 

[CMatt25]

While it is well thought out, I have to say I disagree with most of your points. I’m not going to reply to each and every one, but there are a few I want to point out.

We could get into semantics about what Christ was saying to Peter in Matthew 16:18 but just suffice it to say I believe He was saying He would found His church on the foundation of the testimony of who Christ is. Probably won’t convince anyone here of that, but there it is.

From my understanding, Catholics believe that the pope has direct communion with God and believe he is infallible, correct? In other words, there is no authority above him that challenges him on what he says or does because they believe he acts and speaks directly from God right? If Peter was the first pope, then why did he get rebuked by Paul (a relative newcomer at the time) for ignoring the Gentiles and fearing the Jews to the point of even bending the Gospel slightly (Galatians 2:11-21)? If they had revered Peter the same way the pope is revered today, Paul would have never said anything and the Gospel very would could have become Judaism with a little Christ sprinkled in. But it looks as though Paul did not see Peter as the “pope” or as this infallible man but rather as a man just like him who is capable of being deceived and who needed correction. Does the pope today receive correction and public rebuke when he’s wrong?

And John 6:47-69 is often used to back up the notion that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus when blessed. That kind of misses the point of what Jesus was trying to say there. The people were looking for someone to feed them daily because He had just fed the multitude with some bread and fish. They didn’t want the eternal blessings but just the earthly rewards. He was trying to point them back to the fact that He is the only one who will truly sustain them, not food.

But there’s the argument of, “This wasn’t symbolic because He didn’t say it was symbolic”. True, He didnt say that it was symbolic. But He also didn’t say this was symbolism:

If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. - Matthew 5:29-30

So do Catholics tear out their eyes and cut off their hands when they sin? Or is that rule only applied to John 6?

And the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to claim that Scripture is only “useful” but not final authority is a big stretch. Scripture should be everything to a Christian’s walk. Look at Psalm 119 and tell me that Scripture wasn’t as important to David as tradition.

Now I’m not trying to claim Protestantism is God’s only way necessarily. I hate labels and don’t consider myself a “Protestant”. I’m a Christian.

Thanks for this. I always enjoy reading various faith beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

I see you put the word Catholic in quotation marks. Lots of your fellow Catholics seem to do that on CAF when describing fellow Catholics. One of my good Catholic friends here used to love using QMs. Maybe she’s reading this.

Heh. Indeed I am.

That is, if you mean me.

 

[CMatt25]

Cmat25,

What you mentioned about other faith groups believing they too belong to the 1st century is true. But what isn’t true is that they have this same faith preserved from the earlier times, especially laying on of hands, and the true Euchrist. Belief has to match up to the facts. There are thousands of beliefs, but only one Catholic church. There are lots of beliefs started by men, but only one Catholic started by Jesus.

I love you as a brother, and also so many others of christian faith, because I know they mean well, and their intentions are noble.

Peace to you.

Fred, I know you don’t believe they have the faith of earlier times. You place your faith in Catholic Church interpretations of those times and of ECFs. Thank you. I love you too as a brother. Peace to you as well.

 

[CMatt25]

Heh. Indeed I am.

That is, if you mean me.

Who else PR? Don’t you know you’re one of my best Catholic friends who qualifies as a she on the “non Catholic” forum?

 

[PRmerger]

Who else PR? Don’t you know you’re one of my best Catholic friends on the “non Catholic” forum?

Awwww…:flowers:

and you didn’t even put Catholic (or best friend) in QMs, so I guess I’m the real thing.

 

[stewstew03]

We could get into semantics about what Christ was saying to Peter in Matthew 16:18 but just suffice it to say I believe He was saying He would found His church on the foundation of the testimony of who Christ is. Probably won’t convince anyone here of that, but there it is.

True, you probably won’t - unless you are an authority on the matter.

From my understanding, Catholics believe that the pope has direct communion with God and believe he is infallible, correct?

Sure, just as all Christians have (or should have) direct communion with God. We believe he is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra.

In other words, there is no authority above him that challenges him on what he says or does because they believe he acts and speaks directly from God right?

No, that’s false. The pope is not an autocrat; he is part of a body of believers.

Does the pope today receive correction and public rebuke when he’s wrong?

Yes.

But there’s the argument of, “This wasn’t symbolic because He didn’t say it was symbolic”. True, He didnt say that it was symbolic. But He also didn’t say this was symbolism:

If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. - Matthew 5:29-30

So do Catholics tear out their eyes and cut off their hands when they sin? Or is that rule only applied to John 6?

Respectfully, Uriah, you are confused. Catholics don’t encourage or participate in cannibalism. We believe as Paul did - that the blessed wine is a participation in the blood sacrifice of Christ, and that eating the bread is a participation in the body of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 10:16[/BIBLEDRB]

And the use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to claim that Scripture is only “useful” but not final authority is a big stretch. Scripture should be everything to a Christian’s walk. Look at Psalm 119 and tell me that Scripture wasn’t as important to David as tradition.

Are you suggesting that the Old Testament is the final authority on matters of faith? The NT wasn’t around when Paul wrote to Timothy.

Now I’m not trying to claim Protestantism is God’s only way necessarily. I hate labels and don’t consider myself a “Protestant”. I’m a Christian

I noticed you used labels in your post (i.e., “Catholic”). If you hate labels, then by all means don’t feel any pressure to use them. On the other hand, sometimes using labels makes it easier to have a coherent discussion.

 

[stewstew03]

Heh. Indeed I am.

That is, if you mean me.

PR is a female?? Oops!

 

[PRmerger]

PR is a female?? Oops!

Indeed I am. I used to have on my signature “I’m a she, not a he!” , because, for some reason, the name PRmerger seems to conjure up the image that I’m male. Don’t know why.

 

[pablope]

While it is well thought out, I have to say I disagree with most of your points. I’m not going to reply to each and every one, but there are a few I want to point out.

From my understanding, Catholics believe that the pope has direct communion with God and believe he is infallible, correct? In other words, there is no authority above him that challenges him on what he says or does because they believe he acts and speaks directly from God right?

1 Samuel 15:22-23

22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

I hate labels and don’t consider myself a “Protestant”. I’m a Christian.

Well…who caused the start of different flavors of Christianity?

Do you believe in all of what Christians believed up to 1500? If not, then what makes you like a Christian prior to 1500? What is your connection to those first christians?

[/QUOTE]