Catholic becoming Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter ilovejesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you everyone. I do know God loves them. I know there is one truth. I am NOT a relativist and neither is God. However, I have questioned my faith many times. As humans, we are fallible. We have emotions, biases, and our upbringing and experiences that color our journey of faith. There are really intelligent people on both sides of the protestant/ catholic divide (anyone know William Lane Craig?) I could easily be swayed the protestant direction. If it wasn’t for my Husband being Catholic, I don’t know if I would have considered the Catholic Church. It is not as easy and black and white to determine which is the true church, as some have implied. I pray God leads them all to the ultimate truth. However, he knows their hearts and I just can not believe that they would automatically be hellbound for leaving the Church when they did not realize the gravity of the decision.
 
Because of the good I saw in Protestantism (although I’m so glad to be Catholic and I think the fullness is here), I wanted to share this quote from Pope Benedict, that seems to encourage us to see the good that is there on the other side of the aisle:

Pope Benedict:
"Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
 
Prayer for you and your family: That God the Eternal Father would grant you all to be filled with all the fullness of God (See Ephesians 3:14-19).

The Catholic Church is the place to experience all the fullness of God. Why settle for anything less?

Just like the Tabernacle and the Temple at the center of Old Testament religion where God dwelled in the Holy of Holies, the Catholic Church has a tabernacle at the center where God’s holy presence dwells in the Eucharistic presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

A pulpit, a human being and preaching were never meant to be at the center. Regarding the celebration of the Eucharist, Jesus said: Do this in remembrance of Me. So, the Catholic Church observes the Eucharist daily. We worship daily in the Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist at Mass.

A weekly church service in some church buildings comes short of the fullness found in the daily Catholic Mass. The sanctuary in Catholic church buildings is truly a sanctuary for the Real Spiritual Presence of God and of Jesus Christ in the form of the Eucharistic bread.
 
St. Joan of Arc was not burned at the stake as a heretic by the Church. She was burned at the stake by the English for political reasons, because they wanted to discredit her, and in so doing discredit Charles VII, the king she had crowned in order to reunite France. The English believed they had the rightful heir to the throne of France, not the French, and thus the ongoing conflict between France and England at that time.

It was a very complex situation, but quite an interesting one. And if you read the account of her condemnation trial, it’s quite evident from their questions that the English were trying to railroad her. Joan was later exonerated from the charges of heresy, and eventually canonized as a saint by the Church.
 
ilovejesus said:
… However, he knows their hearts and I just can not believe that they would automatically be hellbound for leaving the Church when they did not realize the gravity of the decision.
Click to expand...
An example from the Baltimore Catechism No .4:
56 Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

“Grievous matter.” To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the “matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But
suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be “grievous matter.”

“Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

“Full consent.” Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man.

Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:
(1) The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
(2) You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
(3) You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Again with all due respect. Here is another example of things that I don’t understand about the Catholic Church and that is your above statement about venial and mortal sins. Last I checked sin is sin.

Another point is about the Holy Communion. I have been to masses before both “ high and ordinary”. I am not making fun of the names of the two types of masses, communion is not even done in the manner we find mentioned in the Bible.

Sure I will hear about this so please feel free.
 
ProfFF said:
… sin is sin …
Click to expand...
Yes, and sin properly defined is only serious sin (called mortal or “unto death”) in the New Testament by St. John). It is that which destroys charity and the friendship with God.

1 John 5 (mortal sin and non-mortal sin)
16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.
Click to expand...
John 15 (mortal sin)
6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.
Click to expand...
Hebrews 10 (mortal sin conditions)
26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.
Click to expand...
The successors to the Apostles determined what is valid communion. It is only wheat bread and grape wine, and unknown Biblically, if there is leavening used, as the gifts used for transubstantiation of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Was not discussing what is considered to be eaten or drank. We use unleavened bread and 100% grape juice.

I should have been more clear. But it is the fact that a high majority only partake in drinking, all eat the bread. Last mass I accompanied my family member in the parishioners were not even offer the “blood” but only the priest drank it.
 
ProfFF said:
Was not discussing what is considered to be eaten or drank. We use unleavened bread and 100% grape juice.

I should have been more clear. But it is the fact that a high majority only partake in drinking, all eat the bread. Last mass I accompanied my family member in the parishioners were not even offer the “blood” but only the priest drank it.
Click to expand...
Do to fear of spilling it has become restricted, but since the Blood of Christ is the entire Christ and the Body of Christ is the entire Christ, it is not necessary to partake of both species.
 
Since When? Since your church says so?
Mark 14:22-23 NKJV
[22] And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” [23] Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

We see in this example of the Lord Jesus was instituting the Lord’s Supper and he said to take and eat AND then take And drink.

John 6:54 NKJV
[54] Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:56 NKJV
[56] He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Matthew 26:26-28 NKJV
[26] And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” [27] Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. [28] For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

So I see the conjunction AND. Which means it is connected.
So your church which was founded by Jesus, does not even follow the example of how to partake in the Lord’s supper? So these examples set and recorded can just be ignored? Hmmm. These examples set and recorded for us by pens guided by the Holy Spirit can be twisted or changed by your church?
Just don’t understand the rational of someone or a group changing examples set by Jesus, and reading these examples and you maybe not questioning who is right Jesus or the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top