Catholic Converts Struggle to Overcome Protestant Mindsets

[Klm]

Hi! I was an evangelical/pentacostal protestant to use the best lable I can come up with, but I became a Catholic almost 2 years ago. First, let me say that there are many pastors out there preaching against the “name it, claim it and frame it” doctrine of prosperity as my Assemblies pastor used to call it. Neither being poor nor rich is a “sign of God’s favor”. But if you are rich, you have a greater responsibility to use your available funds to finance works of mercy. For the rest of us who can barely make ends meet, and sometimes not even that, I love the church’s teaching on a three-way tithe - time, money and talent.
As regards to the mysteries of the faith, I must admit that I have a difficult time with something I have seen in Catholics. When it comes to transubstantion or the Holy Trinity, too often the teaching comes out like this, “(heavy sigh) It’s a mystery. We’ll never understand it.” This frustrates me because people are looking for an explination, yet all they get is, “Accept it on faith because it’s a mystery.” (I think this is coming out harsher than I intend, so if it is, please forgive me. I don’t mean it to be.) My point is, we should try to put the mysteries into human terms, all the while knowing and understanding that it is a mystery and any explinations will be imperfet at best. But we should try to understand them. And be able to explain them. I could be wrong. It could be a mindset of mine that’s a hold over from my protestant days. I never considered that before reading these posts. It could be that I am fascinated by theology, church history, and apologetics. I don’t know. Just a thought.
Kris

 

[seabird3579]

Klm:

As regards to the mysteries of the faith, I must admit that I have a difficult time with something I have seen in Catholics. When it comes to transubstantion or the Holy Trinity, too often the teaching comes out like this, “(heavy sigh) It’s a mystery. We’ll never understand it.” This frustrates me because people are looking for an explination, yet all they get is, “Accept it on faith because it’s a mystery.” (I think this is coming out harsher than I intend, so if it is, please forgive me. I don’t mean it to be.) My point is, we should try to put the mysteries into human terms, all the while knowing and understanding that it is a mystery and any explinations will be imperfet at best. But we should try to understand them. And be able to explain them. I could be wrong. It could be a mindset of mine that’s a hold over from my protestant days. I never considered that before reading these posts. It could be that I am fascinated by theology, church history, and apologetics. I don’t know. Just a thought.
Kris

Hi Kris!

As I was reading your post, a simple thought came to mind that might help you with understanding the “transubstantiation” mystery. I’m only a laywoman and assume I’m talking to another one, so here’s my thought: Jesus at the Last Supper before He died, sat down with the Apostles, his disciples, and did the following (Matt 26:26-29) …"Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…”

If you look up the earliest references to these phrases made by Jesus, it will tell you that he specifically said that ‘This is my body, …this is my blood.’ He didn’t say this represents my body or this is a symbol of my body, …he said, “This IS my body.”

To any normal human beings including the apostles, at first glance, this must have seemed strange. But the fact is, That is exactly what our Lord said, and That is what He meant. I accept it on Faith, Even If I can’t figure it out theologically, philosophically, metaphysically, …I just accept it on Faith, because our Lord said it, Therefore, it is True. When we get to heaven, all might be a little clearer.

I hope that helps.
God bless you,
Brenda

 

[TamaraS]

Maranajewell:

The only thing I can add to this thread is that it is the “prosperity gospel” that has lead me into the Church! I hope that the prosperity gospel will be a short lived fad that dies out soon before it ruins more lives.

I’m reading a lot of stuff here on the prosperity gospel. That leads me to another question. I have a sister-in-law who may be buying into this stuff, but I also am also 99.9% sure that she considers herself an “intercessor”. This is her latest career pursuit, if it isn’t already, it will be her full time job. I happen to have a good Catholic friend who has in-laws that bought her a laptop and are paying her to “intercede” for them in their new business and I guess personal matters as well. I think that is a slap in the face to my friend as well as other people who have always prayed hard for them. You wouldn’t believe some of the stuff they say. It’s crazy! Are “career intercessors” and the prosperity gospel tied together? If not, is one worse than the other? To me, it doesn’t seem right, but maybe I’m the one who’s wrong, and it’s an okay thing. Does anyone know about this? If I’m wrong about it being wrong, please set me straight! The more I read about it, it seems like a pretty common thing- at least at their own church.
Tamara

 

[Della]

Originally Posted by Della
When it comes to one’s devotional life this is all right, but it is not a sound way to determine doctrine and dogma. For that we need a Magisterium with the promise of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. Fortunately for us, Jesus established this Magisterium, which was the Apostles, and after them, their successors, to whom this charism was passed on by the laying on of hands. One’s personal interpretation of Scripture has no bearing whatsoever on this process founded by Christ himself.

Well maybe Im missing something but the disiples had personal interpretations of scripture and discussed it together. Or are you saying that all discussion is over and has been decided? Or is it that only those who the laying of hands was handed down (forgive the pun) that determine things?

I’m not talking about personal interpretation of the Bible but of the Church deciding matters of faith and morals ala Acts 15. There they debated the issues, looked at the witness of the OT (all the Scripture they had at the time), prayed about them, and then decided for the whole Church what was to be believed and done. This is the way the Church operates, not by reading a Bible passage and then deciding what it means. A problem or issue comes up regarding an area of faith or morals, and the Church looks into it, looks at Scripture, debates it, prays over it, and then decides what is the right thing to believe or do. This is how contraception was deemed wrong and the teaching regarding Jesus having two natures, fully God and fully man, were decided, as well. Do you see the difference?

As to the OP’s topic of converts still retaining a Protestant mind set, it is very true of many. What I see most prevalent is the “either or” mentality that does not account for the paradoxes of the Christian faith, of its mystery. They seem to think everything can be explained with mere human reasoning. And while there certainly is room for reason, reason alone does not answer all we believe.

I see this referenced about mystries, I think it upsets perhaps fundys who want it all in black and white. Am I correct they dont allow mysteries? (You would probably count me as a protastant but I personally hate labels).

To many Protestants on the Evangelical side of Christianity the word mystery means unknowable and because they think everything can be made perfectly clear to them by just reading the Bible, it flies in the face of one their most cherished ideas about biblical interpretation.

The bible says that Jesus did many more things that would take so much to write down. If Im going to believe that Christ died for me and trust Him for that, maybe I can be patient and wait on the answers to those nagging questions of mystery. While mysteries are interesting there is so much thats said plainly that one can just say oh a mystery fine God will reveal it in His time or later on I have eternity to ask Joseph if he felt marginalized. Sides if we found out everything now what would we look forward to?? Thats my take on the mystery dont know if its catholic but hopefully at least it makes sense.

There are things that we won’t know until eternity, but none of them impact our salvation, so the writers’ of the NT, in particular, saw no reason to go into such details. I too wish we had more info about Joseph. St. Teresa of Avila had a special devotion for him, which led to our celebrating his feast day on May 1st.

As for us and them your are right it needs to stop, when we are in Heaven it doesnt exist, we wont be able to pack that baggage there. To me the church in the end will be all who believe in Christ I think that stomps a bit on toes of churches, but I cant see Christ deciding a person by their membership, some people never get the privilage of getting that far.

Well, there are a lot of things we can know for certain because Jesus promised his Church that he would lead it into all truth. The truth we need to know, that is. This is why as issues come up and beliefs are more deeply delved into, more and more treasures of the Gospel are revealed, which is why the Church has councils and never stops seeking out the fullness of Jesus message to the world.

 

[Klm]

Hi Seabird! I was using transubstantion as an example. I understand it, but I have heard some Catholics, especially with regard to the Holy Trinity settling for the “it’s a mystery” explinaton. Even when talking to people in RCIA. It seems like the opposite end of the spectrum from the protestant mind set of needing everything explained fully and settling for the human explaination while taking out the mysterious element. Whereas I’ve found Catholics who, because it is a mystery give the instruction, “you have to take it on faith. It’s a mystery.” Which seems like settling for the easy answer instead of trying for a description, analogy, something so people can understand, if nothing else, why it’s a mystery. After all, St. Patrick used a clover to describe the trinity, all the while acknowledging what an imperfect analogy it was.
Kris

 

[Joey1976]

Some of you that were “into” the prosperity gospel, how did you get out of that? What led you to beleive it was wrong when you thought it was true for all those years? Also, have you seen it ruin any people’s lives? If so how? Also, why would the Protestant preachers teach this if it could end up leading people away from their church if it backfires on them? Thanks

 

[wynd]

3) “Denying yourself material possesions will not promote spiritual holiness and may even be a work of the devil.”

In general, one major difficulty that a new convert may have is finding out that material possessions are not a sign of whether God has blessed you or not.

I want to ask converts about learning to deny the appetites of the flesh, which from the writings of the saints seems so crucial to holiness. In my experience, most Protestants (Lutherans/Baptists/Non-denominationals) I know regard denying oneself, fasting, and mortification with a "What’s the point? " attitude. What was your experience?

 

[exoflare]

Joey1976:

Some of you that were “into” the prosperity gospel, how did you get out of that? What led you to beleive it was wrong when you thought it was true for all those years? Also, have you seen it ruin any people’s lives? If so how? Also, why would the Protestant preachers teach this if it could end up leading people away from their church if it backfires on them? Thanks

I was never a Protestant myself, but shouldn’t just reading the book of Job serve to refute that silly “prosperity gospel” stuff?

 

[Neilbass2]

seabird3579:

Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately most of the churches preaching on t.v. and that have sprung up in the last 50 years, seem to lean heavy on the “prosperity gospel.” What do you think has led to this aberration as you so aptly describe?

Sadly, I would have to say that one of the main factors is a corrupt desire on the part of the people preaching the message. When you watch a televangelist preaching “prosperity”, the main message one picks up is “send your money to me and God will make you rich”. It is because these men pray on the poor and the desolate, and use thier faith to take advantage of them.

 

[sea_oat]

Contarini:

The “prosperity Gospel” is alien to mainstream, historic Protestantism. Some people (such as the famous sociologist Max Weber) have identified a form of it with Calvinism, but even Weber admitted that this is not Calvin himself, and Weber’s interpretation of the Puritans (on which he based much of his position) is controversial.

Calvin, in his Institutes (2.10.10-13), proves that the Old Testament saints hoped for eternal life (over against people who said that they only looked for temporal rewards) by pointing out just how miserable their lives on earth were. These are not the words of someone who believed in the prosperity Gospel.

John Wesley believed that if you keep any material possessions beyond what you absolutely need you are robbing God and the poor.

The 19th-century evangelical missionary Hudson Taylor wrote: “WE might naturally have thought that if there was one thing in the life of the LORD JESUS CHRIST which belonged to Him alone, it was His cross-bearing. To guard against so natural a mistake, the HOLY GHOST has taken care in gospel and in epistle to draw our special attention to the oneness of the believer with CHRIST in cross-bearing; and also to prevent misunderstanding as to the character of Christian cross-bearing, and the constancy of its obligation. The LORD JESUS, in the words we are considering, teaches us that if any man, no matter who he may be, will be His disciple, he must — not he may — deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow his LORD.”

These are the voices of authentic Protestantism. The “prosperity gospel” is a hideous aberration.

Edwin

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you that the “Prosperity Gospel” was not identified by Calvin himself. After all, it’s a trademark of EVERY religion and denomination to pick up and discard new theologies/ways of thought that didn’t start with the original thinker. However, quoting John Wesley to back up your point in this case is sort of out of place.

We know that many of Wesley’s theological thoughts were a reaction against Calvinism (particularly predestination), and his thoughts on economics and prosperity were actually rare for Protestants in his time.

 

[sea_oat]

exoflare:

I was never a Protestant myself, but shouldn’t just reading the book of Job serve to refute that silly “prosperity gospel” stuff?

Or better yet, the words of Jesus:

Matthew 19:24: And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (KJV).

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Klm:

Hi! I was an evangelical/pentacostal protestant to use the best lable I can come up with, but I became a Catholic almost 2 years ago. First, let me say that there are many pastors out there preaching against the “name it, claim it and frame it” doctrine of prosperity as my Assemblies pastor used to call it. Neither being poor nor rich is a “sign of God’s favor”. But if you are rich, you have a greater responsibility to use your available funds to finance works of mercy. For the rest of us who can barely make ends meet, and sometimes not even that, I love the church’s teaching on a three-way tithe - time, money and talent.
As regards to the mysteries of the faith, I must admit that I have a difficult time with something I have seen in Catholics. When it comes to transubstantion or the Holy Trinity, too often the teaching comes out like this, “(heavy sigh) It’s a mystery. We’ll never understand it.” This frustrates me because people are looking for an explination, yet all they get is, “Accept it on faith because it’s a mystery.” (I think this is coming out harsher than I intend, so if it is, please forgive me. I don’t mean it to be.) My point is, we should try to put the mysteries into human terms, all the while knowing and understanding that it is a mystery and any explinations will be imperfet at best. But we should try to understand them. And be able to explain them. I could be wrong. It could be a mindset of mine that’s a hold over from my protestant days. I never considered that before reading these posts. It could be that I am fascinated by theology, church history, and apologetics. I don’t know. Just a thought.
Kris

Hi Kris…an insightful, sensitive and caring Post and worth pondering in the light of Pope Benedict’s call for us to be evangalists of The Gospel. I think Kris is right, we do need to have some explanation of our truths of our Faith besides it is a mystery that can never be understood. Of course, some things are … but even so we can offer some sort of explanation …else we do risk appearing as if we believe anything at all once we are told it is a mystery. Good points you have made Kris!..and by one who insights from experience non Catholic attitudes.

But if you are rich, you have a greater responsibility to use your available funds to finance works of mercy. For the rest of us who can barely make ends meet, and sometimes not even that, I love the church’s teaching on a three-way tithe - time, money and talent.

Excellent insight!

Peace…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

wynd:

I want to ask converts about learning to deny the appetites of the flesh, which from the writings of the saints seems so crucial to holiness. In my experience, most Protestants (Lutherans/Baptists/Non-denominationals) I know regard denying oneself, fasting, and mortification with a "What’s the point? " attitude. What was your experience?

Hi there!..Not a direct answer to your question since I have been a Catholic all my life…but all things in moderation, including denying the ‘appetites’ of the flesh…or what self wants to do etc. Mortification of self has a central part in Catholic spirituality as an exercise in learning to say no to oneself. It is a part of our ascetic tradition central to our spirituality. Of course some are called to what I would regard anyway as extreme mortification - such is not my call; nevertheless mortification plays a role in my spirituality and the sting my flesh or self feels because it is denied something it desires, I offer for The Souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned. The very best mortification is to accept life’s difficulties with a cheerful smile for the good of those around one, so they will not be dragged down by my lousy mood because things are not the way I would have them.

As St. Albert said in his Ancient Carmelite Rule: Common sense is the guide of all the virtues.

Peace…Barb

 

[seabird3579]

Klm:

Hi Seabird! I was using transubstantion as an example. I understand it, but I have heard some Catholics, especially with regard to the Holy Trinity settling for the “it’s a mystery” explinaton. Even when talking to people in RCIA. It seems like the opposite end of the spectrum from the protestant mind set of needing everything explained fully and settling for the human explaination while taking out the mysterious element. Whereas I’ve found Catholics who, because it is a mystery give the instruction, “you have to take it on faith. It’s a mystery.” Which seems like settling for the easy answer instead of trying for a description, analogy, something so people can understand, if nothing else, why it’s a mystery. After all, St. Patrick used a clover to describe the trinity, all the while acknowledging what an imperfect analogy it was.
Kris

Kris, just know that anything that can be explained has been explained in the Catechism, pretty thoroughly. However, there are just some things that our minds being finite cannot grasp, nor can they be explained. Only God, our Creator understands all things. The reason Catholics find it relatively easy to settle for “its a mystery” is because 1) it is, and 2) we know that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Therefore, we Trust. Otherwise, if we fretted and researched and pondered and vetted “truths” that are handed down to us through His Shepherd, that wouldn’t be trusting God, or taking Him at His word.

I really believe that this has everything to do with not being able to enter the Kingdom unless you accept it as a child would. A child totally trusts his parents. He does not question whether or not his parents have been properly trained and have sufficient knowledge to be giving him instructions. He just trusts that they do.

 

[skattas]

Hi there!
Just a quick thing…I am a Protestant, and as I read your posting right now, there was much that I could see to be a possibility. The one that I cannot, (and am not sure how you did) was the one about material possessions being the tangible sign that God has blessed you. I’m sorry if this has been your experience, but it is not mine, nor anyone else I know. In fact, this is the first I’ve heard of this. Are we accustomed to thanking God for what he has allowed us to have?..well, yes, as should everyone…but in NO WAY do we see this as an indication of God’s love, devotion, or blessing on us. In fact, one of a Protestants biggest problems in converting to Catholicism is the heavy basis on material things in the CC. For example, the Eucharist being Real Presence…why can we not drink from the cup everytime? I was given a response that it was because there is a risk of spilling it and like with all liquids, it would be wasted when wiped up (whereas the “body” could be picked up, blessed, and taken). I find it hard to believe that such materialism would prevent God’s children from their RIGHT to the cup (the same RIGHT that they have to the “body”). Other examples are the unblieveable amount of statues, and other tools (Rosary Beads, Holy Water, etc…). This is just my point of view, and I thought I, as a Protestant could share my thoughts and opinions. Hope it added!

In Christ,

seabird3579:

I would like to open for discussion the issue of “protestant mindsets” and how they are a struggle for new Catholic converts.

Here are some personal deductions that no doubt others may have observed and wondered about also. The reason I bring this issue up is because I see that struggle take place daily on these forums.

Briefly, my background is a cradle Catholic, left the Church for 10 years in my 30s and returned to the Church in my early 40s. I love my Catholic Faith and treasure it now more than I ever have before.

Having spent 10 years in various protestant and non-denominational churches, I can recognize a “mindset” that goes back to a protestant (vs. catholic) way of thinking and viewing the world. Many times our new converts are not even aware that they are thinking with a ‘mindset.’ Many of them are just beginning to grow in Catholicism and probably are quite overwhelmed with subjects such as the Real Presence, Mary and the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Authority. These are all very good things to wrestle with and it will no doubt, take a “lifetime” to contemplate their mysteries.

The ‘mindset’ I am referring to has to do with Faith. Traditionally, it falls upon each protestant to have to decipher for him or herself what ‘exactly’ do I believe, based on my knowledge of how I perceive scripture in this instance. Though a number of protestant churches have bishops and designated lines of authority – my experience has been Each individual decides for him or herself the final conclusion on any interpretation of scripture or morals.

This is not the case with Catholicism. We have a teaching authority within the Magisterium. Our issues are “settled” unless and until the Magisterium finds a fuller way of elaborating on a truth already known but yet unexpressed.

Mindsets that I have observed in protestanism that don’t have a Catholic counterpart are: 1) Prosperity Gospel – goes something like the “rich are blessed by God, the poor are poor due to sin or some defect,” 2) “Feeling good equates to being good.” 3) “Denying yourself material possesions will not promote spiritual holiness and may even be a work of the devil.”

In general, one major difficulty that a new convert may have is finding out that material possessions are not a sign of whether God has blessed you or not.

The gospel of “go sell what you own, give to the poor, pick up your cross and follow Me” is probably by far, the hardest for most converts to perceive. For that we all have patience and forgiveness.

But it is imperative that converts realize they may be dealing with a “mindset” from their past which may be warring with their desire to become fully engulfed in Catholicism.

 

[seabird3579]

skattas:

Hi there!
Just a quick thing…I am a Protestant, and as I read your posting right now, there was much that I could see to be a possibility. The one that I cannot, (and am not sure how you did) was the one about material possessions being the tangible sign that God has blessed you. I’m sorry if this has been your experience, but it is not mine, nor anyone else I know. In fact, this is the first I’ve heard of this. Are we accustomed to thanking God for what he has allowed us to have?..well, yes, as should everyone…but in NO WAY do we see this as an indication of God’s love, devotion, or blessing on us. In fact, one of a Protestants biggest problems in converting to Catholicism is the heavy basis on material things in the CC. For example, the Eucharist being Real Presence…why can we not drink from the cup everytime? I was given a response that it was because there is a risk of spilling it and like with all liquids, it would be wasted when wiped up (whereas the “body” could be picked up, blessed, and taken). I find it hard to believe that such materialism would prevent God’s children from their RIGHT to the cup (the same RIGHT that they have to the “body”). Other examples are the unblieveable amount of statues, and other tools (Rosary Beads, Holy Water, etc…). This is just my point of view, and I thought I, as a Protestant could share my thoughts and opinions. Hope it added!

In Christ,

Your response is very indicative of the type of problem I am trying to illustrate. Your definition of “materialism” is very different from mine. It sounds as though you have the “protestant” version of materialism, and I am using the “catholic” version. These two very different “mind sets” is what contributes in the difficulty to converts accepting the full teaching of the Magisterium. I also believe that “cafeteria Catholics” and liberals have a similar problem. The “mind” they use to Filter the Church’s teachings have been formed by either anti-Catholic thinkers, theologicians or socialists. It is very difficult for them to get on board without a completely Renewed Mind. This will come with prayer, humility and the desire to learn what God would have them learn through the Magisterium.