Are there Protestants that don't believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Would you marry someone that you only met a couple of hours ago? No engagement period…just straight to the courthouse? Marriage is a big, lifelong commitment…just like being a follower of Jesus.

Why do you suppose, Kliska, that the Early Church STOPPED having people join the same day?

Could it be that experience taught the Church that some seed sprouted quickly but withered in the sun because it had no root as Jesus had taught?

Could it be that experience taught the Church that people needed to mature in their faith and commitment before joining so they wouldn’t fall away and be lost?

Although Randy, the entrance into the Kingdom of God is given to the many almost immediately and without catechesis in Infant baptism, which has always been a practice in the Catholic church.

 

[commenter]

Are those that move from any given protestant communion to the Catholic Church considered “church hoppers”?
Clearly not!

Jon

Of course they must not be considered “church hoppers”. They are all making the right choice. All the labels that apply to people making frivolous hops are suspended in this special situation.

 

[commenter]

Although Randy, the entrance into the Kingdom of God is given to the many almost immediately and without catechesis in Infant baptism, which has always been a practice in the Catholic church.

But this is contingent on some preparation classes for the parents, and (hopefully) some assessment of the parents’ knowledge and willingness to catechize.

The earlier posts about the rigidity of the RCIA process cause me mixed feelings. Prior to RCIA the inquirer would come in for private instruction with a priest, who would assess what kind of preparation, and how much, the person would need. A few decades ago, the RCIA was developed. I think RCIA is mostly good, though it varies widely even within the same diocese. In some programs I have seen, there is a lack of doctrinal content, a constant focus on “process”. In other words, it’s not “what does the Magisterium teach about this?” but rather, “there is no one right answer, however you feel about this is what is true for you”. Sometimes they mentioned (almost reluctantly) that the Catechism does exist; and it gets stored right on that shelf. Or they may say “the Church isn’t, yet, ready to accept contraception, but…”
I believe some parishes have upgraded the doctrinal content in recent years.

Like all good things, the RCIA was founded as a means to an end, but sometimes people treat it like an end in itself. It’s frustrating for someone who already has lived as an active Protestant for years, and sometimes has already studied Catholic doctrine deeply. Some have already intensely discerned the Catholic faith for years, now they show up at RCIA, and they are told “your discernment process starts today”, and you must come to all our sessions.

In fairness to RCIA, it’s difficult to design a program that meets the needs of such different people, especially well informed Protestants. Remember it was designed at a time when the charismatic “Life in the Spirit Seminar”, Cursillo, and other movements were doing wonderful work with small groups, so RCIA, which incorporated their good ideas, would hate to lose that avenue of spiritual growth. The RCIA “group” can be a strong support before and after entrance to the Church, at the parish and sometimes the diocesan level. RCIA is a good program, but needs tweaking in a few different ways.

 

[Contarini]

But this is contingent on some preparation classes for the parents, and (hopefully) some assessment of the parents’ knowledge and willingness to catechize.

The earlier posts about the rigidity of the RCIA process cause me mixed feelings. Prior to RCIA the inquirer would come in for private instruction with a priest, who would assess what kind of preparation, and how much, the person would need. A few decades ago, the RCIA was developed. I think RCIA is mostly good, though it varies widely even within the same diocese. In some programs I have seen, there is a lack of doctrinal content, a constant focus on “process”. In other words, it’s not “what does the Magisterium teach about this?” but rather, “there is no one right answer, however you feel about this is what is true for you”. Sometimes they mentioned (almost reluctantly) that the Catechism does exist; and it gets stored right on that shelf. Or they may say “the Church isn’t, yet, ready to accept contraception, but…”
I believe some parishes have upgraded the doctrinal content in recent years.

Like all good things, the RCIA was founded as a means to an end, but sometimes people treat it like an end in itself. It’s frustrating for someone who already has lived as an active Protestant for years, and sometimes has already studied Catholic doctrine deeply. Some have already intensely discerned the Catholic faith for years, now they show up at RCIA, and they are told “your discernment process starts today”, and you must come to all our sessions.

In fairness to RCIA, it’s difficult to design a program that meets the needs of such different people, especially well informed Protestants. Remember it was designed at a time when the charismatic “Life in the Spirit Seminar”, Cursillo, and other movements were doing wonderful work with small groups, so RCIA, which incorporated their good ideas, would hate to lose that avenue of spiritual growth. The RCIA “group” can be a strong support before and after entrance to the Church, at the parish and sometimes the diocesan level. RCIA is a good program, but needs tweaking in a few different ways.

The fundamental difference between RCIA and the old “instruction” method, it seems to me, is that in the latter case it would be much easier to convert to the Catholic Faith in the abstract. RCIA forces one to think about what one is doing as a choice of one concrete, flawed community over another. And that is always my sticking point. I think this means that RCIA is a good thing–that is, I think that the things it forces me to confront are things I need to confront. But sometimes I think, “If I had just taken that Byzantine Catholic priest’s offer to instruct me privately all those years ago–I don’t remember how many but more than 15 for sure–I would not still be rolling around in uncertainty.”

 

[Contarini]

Not quite.

The word “catholic” with a lower-case ‘c’ means universal. That is why Christians, including non-Catholics, recite the Nicene creed, which includes “And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” This is the one, true, universal church founded by Jesus Christ. It is His church family.

The word “Catholic” with an upper-case ‘c’ refers to a particular group of people, a subset of all believers. Some Catholics are offended by being called a Roman Catholic, and some are honored. It is a personal feeling and has different definitions depending on who you are asking. Sometimes Catholic means Roman Catholic (i.e., under the authority of the Pope in Rome), but sometimes it refers to Greek Orthodox.

Many Protestants have employed this useful typographical distinction, yes. But this is hardly the historical or self-evident use of the term (indeed, the distinction wasn’t even possible in early Christian times, if I’m not mistaken). “Catholic” can’t just mean “everybody.” It doesn’t, for instance, include Muslims. Most of us would probably agree that it doesn’t include Mormons. In other words, it describes a particular “subset” of the human race, and even of those who claim to follow Jesus. That isn’t a peculiarity of the “Roman Catholic” usage of the term. It’s just that the subset Protestants mean by “catholic” is bigger than the subset Catholics mean by “Catholic.” It includes Baptists but not Mormons.

Another way of putting it is that for Protestants, “catholic” simply means “Christian.” Catholics have come to distinguish between non-Christians and non-Catholic Christians, granting the latter a kind of partial membership in the Church.

This isn’t the position of the early Church. In the early centuries, if you were outside the Church you were outside the Church, period. A schismatic or heretical “Christian” was, if anything, worse than a pagan. This absolute stance began to break down with Rome’s decision in the 3rd century, defended and developed by St. Augustine against the Donatists, that baptism celebrated in schismatic communities was valid. In relatively recent times, the Catholic Church has taken that loophole and widened it considerably, so that now they go pretty far in acknowledging Trinitarian non-Catholic Christians (exactly the same people who are part of the “catholic Church” by the mainstream Protestant definition) as brothers and sisters. But they still don’t see us as fully part of the Church.

Protestants, on the other hand, are able to maintain the absolute division between “inside” and “outside” the Church by defining the Church much more broadly. Evangelical Protestants, in particular, tend to say simply that Mormons and other unorthodox groups naming the name of Jesus are “not Christians.”

I think a case could be made for combining the two approaches: for saying that Trinitarianism is indeed the fundamental litmus test of orthodoxy, but that there are relative shades of orthodoxy within that broad umbrella, and at the same time that those who fall outside it (personally, I would be particularly inclined to apply this to Oneness Pentecostals) may also be brothers and sisters in the same qualified sense that Catholics apply to all Protestants.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Of course they must not be considered “church hoppers”. They are all making the right choice. All the labels that apply to people making frivolous hops are suspended in this special situation.

Right/wrong and frivolous/serious are not the same thing. One can do something for wrong but serious reasons. Many people on this forum exhort Catholics who don’t accept all Catholic teaching to leave the Church. I’m not sure they are right to do so, but they clearly don’t regard such a move as “church hopping.”

As I see it, “church hopping” is moving from one part of the true Church to another.

Which makes the question of “converting” from Protestantism to Catholicism complicated, since even Catholics admit that we are already “imperfectly” part of the Church.

Edwin

 

[rfournier103]

I would say (for the most part) “no.”

1. There are Protestants that see the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church as a man-made organization that is NOT the Church that Christ founded. The TRUE Church (according to them) was forced underground and suppressed by the Pope of Rome and his Roman church.
2. There are Protestants that see their own ‘denominations’ as legitimate offspring of Christ’s Church. The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church took a wrong turn somewhere or other and their church broke away and got Christianity back on the right track.
3. For the most part, I think that 99% of Protestants really don’t care and have given it ZERO thought.

However… there ARE Protestants that DO see the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church as the Church that Jesus Christ founded. These Protestants can usually be found at Holy Mass on Sundays and at an RCIA class at least one night during the week.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

commenter;12608356]But this is contingent on some preparation classes for the parents, and (hopefully) some assessment of the parents’ knowledge and willingness to catechize

.

I don’t disagree with you in the present form. The infant although enters the Kingdom of God by water baptism with the profession of faith made by the sponsors and parents. This has always been the biblical practice. Water baptism with a profession of faith.

At Pentecost was a unique situation that involved thousands, who were either sprinkled or poured over in water baptism with a profession of faith made by adults.

Non-Catholic Christians in particular make a profession of faith (without a credo) without water baptism, which is never a biblical practice.

The earlier posts about the rigidity of the RCIA process cause me mixed feelings. Prior to RCIA the inquirer would come in for private instruction with a priest, who would assess what kind of preparation, and how much, the person would need.

The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church evangelization, includes everyone and does not neglect anyone including infants, the dying, aged and sick.

A few decades ago, the RCIA was developed. I think RCIA is mostly good, though it varies widely even within the same diocese. In some programs I have seen, there is a lack of doctrinal content, a constant focus on “process”. In other words, it’s not “what does the Magisterium teach about this?” but rather, “there is no one right answer, however you feel about this is what is true for you”. Sometimes they mentioned (almost reluctantly) that the Catechism does exist; and it gets stored right on that shelf. Or they may say “the Church isn’t, yet, ready to accept contraception, but…”
I believe some parishes have upgraded the doctrinal content in recent years.

There is always room for improvement in any RCIA program, yet the content of the Church’s catechesis does not change. Knowledgeable Catechetical instructors are critical to an RCIA process.

Like all good things, the RCIA was founded as a means to an end, but sometimes people treat it like an end in itself. It’s frustrating for someone who already has lived as an active Protestant for years, and sometimes has already studied Catholic doctrine deeply. Some have already intensely discerned the Catholic faith for years, now they show up at RCIA, and they are told “your discernment process starts today”, and you must come to all our sessions.

Although most protestants who convert are very knowledgeable of scripture and the Catholic faith doctrine, their faith requires RCIA catechesis to form their conscience to the Word, Presence and discernment of the Holy Spirit. RCIA should be a spiritual conversion not a book text knowledge based faith.

In fairness to RCIA, it’s difficult to design a program that meets the needs of such different people, especially well informed Protestants. Remember it was designed at a time when the charismatic “Life in the Spirit Seminar”, Cursillo, and other movements were doing wonderful work with small groups, so RCIA, which incorporated their good ideas, would hate to lose that avenue of spiritual growth. The RCIA “group” can be a strong support before and after entrance to the Church, at the parish and sometimes the diocesan level. RCIA is a good program, but needs tweaking in a few different ways.

RCIA is not a start and end in Catholicism, but a life long lived faith that grows from the basic faith introduction from inquirer, enlightenment to mystagogy. It is here where new converts should get their questions answered that graduates them into spiritual realities described by spiritual terms.

 

[commenter]

.

There is always room for improvement in any RCIA program, yet the content of the Church’s catechesis does not change. Knowledgeable Catechetical instructors are critical to an RCIA process.

Some graduates of RCIA say they learned the Catholic Faith, while others say they did not. Some instructors know the Faith, but may not agree with it; I have known some instructors who know the dogma but consider it unimportant, or a distraction from their main priorities, such as “community” or “peace and justice”.

Although most protestants who convert are very knowledgeable of scripture and the Catholic faith doctrine, their faith requires RCIA catechesis to form their conscience to the Word, Presence and discernment of the Holy Spirit. RCIA should be a spiritual conversion not a book text knowledge based faith.

In your first sentence, I would take out the term before “catechesis”. Put in the word “Catholic” instead. RCIA is supposed to be a means - one of the means - not an end in itself.
Your second sentence illustrates the anti-dogmatic bias I found in some RCIA programs. Catholicism isn’t for or against “spirituality”, or “spiritual conversion”. The fact that RCIA is heavily for “spirituality” is a red flag for Catholics. During their lifetime, some people convert towards God, others convert away from God - often focusing on spirituality. (The Church would also be concerned about any program that is inherently opposed to spirituality).

.
RCIA is not a start and end in Catholicism, but a life long lived faith that grows from the basic faith introduction from inquirer, enlightenment to mystagogy. It is here where new converts should get their questions answered that graduates them into spiritual realities described by spiritual terms.

Catholicism is about God, helping people move in the direction towards God, guided by the Truth, and love. As people move closer to God, they lose interest in spirituality. As people move away from God, they talk more about spirituality. Too often, RCIA programs regard “movement” as a good thing, a goal in itself. Catholicism of course does not. The Church would say it depends on what direction you are moving in. That’s where dogma is relevant. And some RCIA programs recognize why it is important.

 

[KathleenGee]

St Ignatius of Antioch…Antioch founded by S. Peter…called the Church, Catholic…not Roman Catholic, Greek for universal…the original title was ‘Universal Christian Church’ that covered all peoples, races and tongues.

There were 5 Churches, Jerusalem because Our Lord died and resurrected there, Alexandria founded by St. Mark, Antioch…Peter…Rome by SS Peter and Paul. Constantinople was formed later, also imperial…which developed into a different culture and when there were disputes…now Rome as head authority would settle disputes with Constantinople…because the latter involved imperial considerations…and the Roman Church stated administration was to be solely ecclesial oriented.

Don’t want to go into a different direction…but there is also the issue of the Papal states which appears to be imperial oriented…the Holy Roman Empire…which was essentially Orthodox …alot to learn…

But divisions within Christianity must grieve our Lord very much…and it is something we must all pray to overcome…an actual reunification that involves both word and action to bring us to one visible Church.

The

 

[MaximusBBS]

As a Lutheran, my church history looks a little different from some of the Protestant understandings described in earlier posts.

I was always taught that since Pentecost, the Church was unified - it was both Catholic and Orthodox and consisted of what came to be called the Eastern Church and the Western Church - which eventually split. Lutherans were part of the Western Church, the Catholic Church; until Luther and his followers called for reforms and were accused of heresy instead and excommunicated.

Since then, Lutherans and Catholics have lurched between hurling anathemas at each other and earnestly seeking a common ground.

May God have mercy on us.

Without some additional understanding here on East vs West etc I’d say this about sums up my Pre-Catholic experience as well.

I was raised in a Christian home, and though we never attended a Catholic church I hesitate to use the term “Protestant” becuase I never was under the impression that we were “protesting” against anything. We were never part of a particular denomination, and were members of (and my dad an Elder/Deacon at several) Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist, “Bible” and “Bible Fellowship” and my parents now attend their local Southern Baptist where my dad is a Deacon/Elder (Baptist Deacon is very different than a Catholic Deacon)

Churches we joined (reason for changes above is due to moving to new areas, not “church hopping”) were evaluated based on how clearly demonstrated was scriptural teaching and salvation message.

As far as Church history, basically there was the Early (Catholic) Church, then Martin Luther comes along and realizes the church has strayed from teaching of Scripture, and sparks the reformation, and splits off. Then the Catholic church realizing the error of its ways comes up with the Council of Trent, but the reformation continued gaining momentum.

Now there’s many denominations, of which the Catholic church is one, and the oldest… but I was always taught that things like the Bible “as we know it” was created by the Catholic church (obviously divinely inspired writings, but compiled and organized by the Early church).

As has been mentioned in this thread a few times though it seems like there are a lot of “cradle Catholics” who haven’t got the slightest clue, and unfortunately this trickles out into the post reformation world. I remember my mom had a friend who claimed she was chastised by her priest that she was not supposed to read the Bible, that only Priests were allowed to read the Bible.

Now… Recently when I was not yet Catholic we were looking for a church and visited a Baptist church, but I was troubled that the Pastor made some comment that Catholics taught “works based salvation” and that you had to “pay for membership” and a few other things that I knew to be blatantly untrue. I struck up a conversation with this pastor, also indicating things like the early Catholic church, the Church’s role in creating the modern Bible etc… To which he replied that the Catholic church had nothing to do with creating the Bible and that there had always existed “Real” Christians alongside the heretical Catholic church. I eventually gave up on that discussion.

As far as me joining the Catholic church, I spent lots of time in prayer and discussing with my (Southern Baptist Deacon) dad, and he was always very encouraging, and in complete agreement with my reasoning. Most of the things that are commonly drawn as differences between Catholics and “Evangelicals” he sided with Catholics on… For instance

A) “Sola Scriptura” : He considered this to be nonsense, after all if Scripture in itself was alone sufficient then what is the purpose of the church? Why have Pastors? Why have Seminary? Furthermore we know the early church didn’t have the Bible, they had leaders, traditions, and some letters.

B) “Faith Alone” Salvation : He agreed that of course “Faith without works is dead” and so on, no argument here.

C) Papal Authority/Peter as first Pope : Again he agreed scripture is clear as far as this goes, and he has great respect for Pope Francis

D) Real Presence/Transubstantiation : Again believes this is what’s taught in scripture and doesn’t argue with it as a doctrine.

He had similar discussions with their pastor and the pastor was in agreement that he had heard “as a child” that Catholics taught things not consistent with Christianity, but after studying it, found that everything he was told/thought was just not true (as far as what Catholics believe/taught).

I think if he were a bit younger and less attached to his current church community my dad really would consider becoming an official Catholic, but he already seems to be in agreement with them on many/most of the common “controversies”

 

[Contarini]

If you or another Protestant don’t believe, please tell me why.

Why would anyone put things in such an anachronistic way?

For one thing, many scholars–even Catholic scholars–question whether Jesus founded a Church at all.

But more to the point (since I am not one of those people), it’s obvious that all modern churches are different in all kinds of ways from the “original church,” insofar as we can even discern what that was like.

Clearly the RCC stands in continuity with that early church. So do the Eastern Churches. Protestant communities all, in one way or another, have broken continuity with the medieval Church in an effort (at best only partially successful, and that’s being generous) to recover some aspect of early Christianity which they believed had been lost.

And, of course, the Roman Communion is, well, in communion with Rome, while the Orthodox aren’t. The significance of this particular form of continuity can be debated, but it does make your Church unique.

So this is not to deny that the “RCC” is unique among Christian churches and has very strong claims. But it’s not as simple as “it’s the original church that Christ founded.” That claim, on the face of it, is simply ridiculous, given the many features of the modern RCC that weren’t present in the first century. (One can, of course, quite reasonably say that these features are peripheral and that the RCC is the same as the first-century Church in all essentials. Which is why I say “on the face of it.” Things are not always what they seem. But Protestants can easily respond that similarly, the changes they have made are not essential either, and may in some ways actually result in more similarity with the Church as Christ founded it.)

Edwin

 

[aidanbradypop]

I would say (for the most part) “no.”

1. There are Protestants that see the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church as a man-made organization that is NOT the Church that Christ founded. The TRUE Church (according to them) was forced underground and suppressed by the Pope of Rome and his Roman church.
2. There are Protestants that see their own ‘denominations’ as legitimate offspring of Christ’s Church. The ‘Roman’ Catholic Church took a wrong turn somewhere or other and their church broke away and got Christianity back on the right track.
3. For the most part, I think that 99% of Protestants really don’t care and have given it ZERO thought.

However… there ARE Protestants that DO see the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church as the Church that Jesus Christ founded. These Protestants can usually be found at Holy Mass on Sundays and at an RCIA class at least one night during the week.

I would say that 2 and 3 are probably spot on.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi everybody. Admittedly I’m a late-comer to this thread, but here’s one of the things I don’t understand about Protestants …

This thread asks “Are there Protestants that **don’t **believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?” (emphasis added) but what about those of you who **do **believe that? Why don’t you then become RC?

I know it’s easy to say “indifferentism” … but, well, not everything worth doing has to be difficult.

P.S. By way of analogy, wouldn’t you find it strange if I said “I believe Eastern Orthodoxy is the original church Jesus founded himself, but I’m going to be Roman Catholic anyhow”?

 

[aidanbradypop]

This thread asks “Are there Protestants that **don’t **believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?” (emphasis added) but what about those of you who **do **believe that? Why don’t you then become RC?

I think those that believe it do become Catholic.

Some believe it but also believe the RCC errored along the way and the Reformation corrected such errors

 

[ffg]

I’m glad this thread was resurrected yesterday.

Great read.

 

[MaximusBBS]

Hi everybody. Admittedly I’m a late-comer to this thread, but here’s one of the things I don’t understand about Protestants …

This thread asks “Are there Protestants that **don’t **believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?” (emphasis added) but what about those of you who **do **believe that? Why don’t you then become RC?

I know it’s easy to say “indifferentism” … but, well, not everything worth doing has to be difficult.

P.S. By way of analogy, wouldn’t you find it strange if I said “I believe Eastern Orthodoxy is the original church Jesus founded himself, but I’m going to be Roman Catholic anyhow”?

Well here’s a question… some protestants view their denomination as a legitimate offshoot of the Catholic church, and I think that’s basically where my dad is. No specific problem with the Catholic church, but don’t see it as morally “superior” to his SBC church.

The other case is someone like my brother, who demands a “rock band” church experience, and lots of kids activities. He couldn’t stand the “structure” of traditional Baptist churches, and his family has since always attended independent churches that have “praise teams” not choirs, and the pastor may wear shorts and flip-flops.

I’m the polar opposite of my brother… I dearly wish our local parish were a gothic cathedral with a pipe organ and grand choir. I love the formality and tradition. This is what attracted me to the Catholic church, and the more I studied the history and doctrine the more I said “this is me”.

The other thing I can say is local dependency, when I lived up north I heard nothing but horror stories from the local Catholics. Our housekeeper often talked about how her family was always broke because their priest was demanding thousands of dollars a month (extended family) to help her great grandfather out of purgatory. A class-mate of mine in high school often complained that every time his family went to church (Catholic) that it was just a 3hr lecture on why they needed to give more $ to the church.

A pastor who visited our church from time to time (was about 90 years old 15 years ago… suppose he’s gone now) often recounted growing up in a Catholilc home, and visiting a “tent revival”, when he came home his dad asked if he’d been out to the event, he said yes, and his dad told him to never associate with Protestants again, and proceeded to beat him unconscious.

Our regular pastor had been in Catholic seminary, and during the course of his study found he was learning things that were contrary to what was taught in his home-church… He sent a note and a Bible to a (female) friend back home and encouraged her to study some things that he was learning in Seminary. Her parents found the note and Bible and told her that Bibles were forbidden, only priests were allowed to read them, and she was not allowed to contact Jeff again, since he was a heretic for suggesting she read the Bible… he left Seminary to become a protestant pastor, and the girl married him, and hadn’t talked to her parents since.

A co-worker I knew who was catholic stopped going to mass around the time of the clergy abuse stuff… He said their pastor came around after a few months… and was only concerned that he noticed they had stopped giving money, and never asked why they hadn’t been at mass or anything about them personally just concerned that the checks had stopped.

Perhaps you can see why some protestants would be wary of the Catholic church.

Of course all the above accounts are things I heard, and contrary to my actual experience, but there were enough stories of similar theme that there must be some truth to them.

 

[Tajho]

…
Our housekeeper often talked about how her family was always broke because their priest was demanding thousands of dollars a month (extended family) to help her great grandfather out of purgatory. A class-mate of mine in high school often complained that every time his family went to church (Catholic) that it was just a 3hr lecture on why they needed to give more $ to the church.

A pastor who visited our church from time to time (was about 90 years old 15 years ago… suppose he’s gone now) often recounted growing up in a Catholilc home, and visiting a “tent revival”, when he came home his dad asked if he’d been out to the event, he said yes, and his dad told him to never associate with Protestants again, and proceeded to beat him unconscious.

Our regular pastor had been in Catholic seminary, and during the course of his study found he was learning things that were contrary to what was taught in his home-church… He sent a note and a Bible to a (female) friend back home and encouraged her to study some things that he was learning in Seminary. Her parents found the note and Bible and told her that Bibles were forbidden, only priests were allowed to read them, and she was not allowed to contact Jeff again, since he was a heretic for suggesting she read the Bible… he left Seminary to become a protestant pastor, and the girl married him, and hadn’t talked to her parents since.

A co-worker I knew who was catholic stopped going to mass around the time of the clergy abuse stuff… He said their pastor came around after a few months… and was only concerned that he noticed they had stopped giving money, and never asked why they hadn’t been at mass or anything about them personally just concerned that the checks had stopped.

QUOTE]

Maximus the four examples you site are similar to things I have heard. What is interesting is that I have heard such focused on Protestant churches. My mother was a cradle Catholic and my father Lutheran. He left his church over money and took years until he became a Catholic. I think family and my mother had a lot to do with his conversion.

I guess my point is that such stories are views of individuals reactions to person or persons representing a or the church. This is more emotionalism than logic or faith. Faith is what should bring a person to the Church.

Aren’t we getting off the subject at least on to a tangent in that we are siting examples but not looking directly at the subject of why some do not believe the Church founded in about 33 A.D. is not the true Church

 

[Contarini]

Hi everybody. Admittedly I’m a late-comer to this thread, but here’s one of the things I don’t understand about Protestants …

This thread asks “Are there Protestants that **don’t **believe that the RCC is the original church Jesus founded himself?” (emphasis added) but what about those of you who **do **believe that? Why don’t you then become RC?

I know it’s easy to say “indifferentism” … but, well, not everything worth doing has to be difficult.

P.S. By way of analogy, wouldn’t you find it strange if I said “I believe Eastern Orthodoxy is the original church Jesus founded himself, but I’m going to be Roman Catholic anyhow”?

This whole way of putting it is anachronistic. It makes no sense and doesn’t take history seriously.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

This whole way of putting it is anachronistic. It makes no sense and doesn’t take history seriously.

Edwin

You may have a point there. At the least, I’ll expand it to three categories: those Protestants who believe the assertion, those who disbelieve it, and those who neither believe nor disbelieve it.