Catholic to Protestant

[Corpus_Cristi]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

 

[Rocky]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

In my family, the ones who have left Catholicism for a Protestant church have done so because it was easier than standing up for the religion they were raised in. Or in some cases for them to acknowledge their sin or to turn away from it. To them it’s all the same, Catholic or Protestant worship. But I have put my trust in the Lord, and continue to pray for their return to the faith as it does not do any good to nag or hound them. I am sure God wants them back in the fold much more than I do.

 

[Tomcmaj]

Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis.

Geeze, someone should tell them!

:bounce:

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

This is a multifactorial problem with a mutifactorial problem. Many leave for sin. Luther married a nun, Zwingli admitted fornication while a priest and later married, Knox married, Calvins father was excommunicated for embezzelment.

Many Catholics that leave know little of their faith. Many Catholics know little of the history. It has taken me the better part of 30 years to understand that Protestanism is a western european form of thought establishing many new religions. I can understand that now and express that.

Protestants have a twisted history as you know as they explain to unkowing Catholics how the Church has kept them from the Bible. The attacks are usually Mary worship, the need to continue in grace and it is appealing to be “saved” and be done with confession, etc. Many Catholics are just depressed humans looking for better music, get caught up in emotional responses and in my opinion as I said know little of their Faith and history as you have outlined. If they knew what you have posted they would not leave. It would be fair to say they do not know what you have posted.

 

[Davina100]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

For my family members that have left the church I would say it was a lack of catechesis. When they met with anti-catholic protestants and didn’t know the Catholic faith not only to defend it but to know that what they were being told was completely wrong. At least for some they still have a relationship with our Lord. There are some in my family that have left Christianity completely. Again not knowing the faith to be able to see that it is more than mere fairly tales for the weak.

 

[Davina100]

This is a multifactorial problem with a mutifactorial problem. Many leave for sin. Luther married a nun, Zwingli admitted fornication while a priest and later married, Knox married, Calvins father was excommunicated for embezzelment.

Many Catholics that leave know little of their faith. Many Catholics know little of the history. It has taken me the better part of 30 years to understand that Protestanism is a western european form of thought establishing many new religions. I can understand that now and express that.

Protestants have a twisted history as you know as they explain to unkowing Catholics how the Church has kept them from the Bible. ** The attacks are usually Mary worship, the need to continue in grace and it is appealing to be “saved” and be done with confession, etc. **Many Catholics are just depressed humans looking for better music, get caught up in emotional responses and in my opinion as I said know little of their Faith and history as you have outlined. If they knew what you have posted they would not leave. It would be fair to say they do not know what you have posted.

:yup:

 

[7_Sorrows]

they say that the second largest denomination is made up of Catholics who have left the Catholic Church.
this is very sad. many have said it is from poor catechesis and that they don’t know their own faith very well. many leave because of their differing view of homosexuality, or abortion, or divorce, etc.
as another poster said, it is easier to leave your faith than to stand up for what it proclaims.
i myself am a convert from the episcopal church. i wanted to come to the Catholic church because it still is not afraid to back moral values that i believe in.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

I would agree and say its mostly because of their lack of knowledge of the history regarding the Catholic Church and therefore not knowing their faith.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Agree – know-nothing Catholics are pushovers for aggressive.Bible-only Protestants who dazzle them by quoting Bible verses at them. They have no idea that the New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings, and that the Bible is a product of the Church, guided by the Spirit. Most Protestants have memorized “proof-texts” of their own denomination and really don’t know much about the Bible. They usually don’t have a clue about where we got it. And many (most) definitely know nothing about the history of Christianity, which, after all, is the history of the Catholic Church!

It’s been my experience that there are two primary reasons why Catholics leave the Church – (1) they don’t know their Faith, and/or (2) they don’t want to obey the moral teachings, and look for a “church” that approves of divorce and remarriage, or contraception, or abortion, or homosexual activity, or fill in the blank.

But there’s hope for their return. There are many “reverts.”

Here’s a little history book:

Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

This book is also available from Catholic Answers and from Amazon.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Cat]

Agree – know-nothing Catholics are pushovers for aggressive.Bible-only Protestants who dazzle them by quoting Bible verses at them. They have no idea that the New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings, and that the Bible is a product of the Church, guided by the Spirit. Most Protestants have memorized “proof-texts” of their own denomination and really don’t know much about the Bible. They usually don’t have a clue about where we got it. And many (most) definitely know nothing about the history of Christianity, which, after all, is the history of the Catholic Church!

It’s been my experience that there are two primary reasons why Catholics leave the Church – (1) they don’t know their Faith, and/or (2) they don’t want to obey the moral teachings, and look for a “church” that approves of divorce and remarriage, or contraception, or abortion, or homosexual activity, or fill in the blank.

But there’s hope for their return. There are many “reverts.”

Here’s a little history book:

Where We Got the Bible, Our Debt to the Catholic Church
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

This book is also available from Catholic Answers and from Amazon.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

I’m a convert from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism.

I agree with this post and all the other ones in this thread so far.

Here are some other reasons why I believe people leave the Catholic Church:

1. A romance. They meet a man or woman who is not Catholic, fall in love, think that it will work out that they can remain Catholic while their love remains non-Catholic, but as time goes by, they find it easier to just attend whatever fellowship the non-Catholic attends. Or in many cases, the non-Catholic is not faithful about attending any fellowship, but enjoys spending the weekend relaxing or pursuing various recreational activities (especially outdoor activities like camping that take a family away from a city/town with churches), and the Catholic gradually falls away from Mass attendance and eventually stops practicing their Catholic faith.
2. Getting hurt by someone in the Church. Now I’m not just talking about some little tiff, but I’m talking about something that happens week after week, year after year. Obviously sexual abuse or perversion is one of the most serious hurts. But there are other ways that people can be hurt in the Church. It’s no wonder that these people depart the instant they are old enough to make that decision and follow through.
3. Boredom, restlessness, and search for a more stimulating worship experience. Often Christians will say, “I’m not being fed.” I see this even among Catholics who are never satisfied with their parish and their Mass, but are always seeking a new and more intense Mass. I worry about these Catholics, because I think that this mindset can lead to attrition. OTOH, it can also lead to greater spirituality. I just think we need to be careful whenever we are bored in the Church. A lot of people end up leaving the Catholic Church because a certain Protestant church is more exciting. But what Catholics don’t know is that eventually, that exciting church will become boring, and the restlessness will start all over again, and they will end up leaving THAT church for greener pastures.
4. Music. In the U.S., music is extremely important to many people, and they simply cannot take bland, poorly-done music week after week, year after year. When they try to bring about improvements, they are often shot down by a music director who tells them some variety of the excuse, “We can’t it do it any other way.” I think a lot of Catholics, many more than anyone suspects, are lured to Protestant churches by the excellent music, especially the good contemporary music. A lot of Catholics think that the answer to this problem is bringing back the ancient Catholic music. That could be, although I am a skeptic. I think the answer is to bring back EXCELLENT music, any style (that is deemd appropriate for the Mass). The way to bring back excellent music is to hire excellent people who know how to teach music to the congregation, and how to raise enthusiasm for music in the parish. I also think that the Catholic Church in the U.S. should pay their musicians, because a lot of full-time musicians are forced to play at non-Catholic churches in order to make a living and support their families.

 

[roads152]

I agree with posters here about widespread ignorance of events in the past.
The exodus from our Holy Mother Church is a reality that can be prevented through real information dissemination about history. This is a job that is better done by the clergy and the laity under the guidance of the clergy.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

I think those people that intentionally leave the Catholic church (rather than simply drift away) usually do so because they believe that the Catholic Church, in one form or another, abuses its power–and in that way these people are probably not so different from those who left 500 years ago.

Our own congregation, which is not fundamentalist/evangelical, is probably at least 50% ex-Catholic and does include several people that I know of who are Protestant “reverts,” that is, they converted to Catholicism but eventually left when they found the claims of the church to be untenable. (Since we are near a large university, we no doubt have way way more than our share of people who are really into history.) So I think at least for certain people, “to be deep in history is to cease being Catholic” and their problems with the Catholic Church are probably more a matter of simple credibility than anything else. I think they (and I) would disagree that Christianity is historically Catholic, although this is certainly the case for Western Christianity.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

Ok, you started well, but then digressed into Luther bashing, etc.

But, still, the broached subject matter is paramount in importance.

Since, biases run deeply in all the Christian denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc., let’s address some of your thinking from another perspective. A perspective that is sufficiently analogous to the religious view, as to be pertinent, but avoids skewing biases.

Is it true that originators, who hold the historic keys, are – due to origination and history – forever valid?

The answer is no.

Take mathematics.

For centuries, the concept of space rested upon the mathematical understanding of point.

Until, Descartes.

With his reformed thinking, the concept of space rests upon the mathematical understanding of plane.

So then, there were the point believers and the plane believers.

The plane believing came out of the roots of the point believing.

To this day, the point believers think the plane believers are wrong, and vice versa.

Who’s view is valid?

The point believers because they were the originators, who have history on their side?

The plane believers because they are the reformers, who are not bound by the past?

Today, the latest thinking is that neither are correct.

The takeaway on this is that though one’s thinking is original and historical and even foundational to future different thought, it is not – due to that – necessarily still valid thinking.

History is replete with centuries held beliefs that were shown by the “reformers” as invalid.

But, reformation is not – due to being reformation, per se – necessarily valid thinking either.

Now, let me return to the religious slant on this.

Jesus Christ was a reformer.

Martin Luther was a reformer.

Jim Jones was a reformer.

Regardless, of each’s belief, their “reformation” was from an earlier, historical view.

The Catholic Church is by far the most prolific contributor to the Christian faith: a treasure, for all who love Christ.

But, the argument We were here first, so We know best, is specious.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think those people that intentionally leave the Catholic church (rather than simply drift away) usually do so because they believe that the Catholic Church, in one form or another, abuses its power–and in that way these people are probably not so different from those who left 500 years ago.

Our own congregation, which is not fundamentalist/evangelical, is probably at least 50% ex-Catholic and does include several people that I know of who are Protestant “reverts,” that is, they converted to Catholicism but eventually left when they found the claims of the church to be untenable. (Since we are near a large university, we no doubt have way way more than our share of people who are really into history.) So I think at least for certain people, “to be deep in history is to cease being Catholic” and their problems with the Catholic Church are probably more a matter of simple credibility than anything else. I think they (and I) would disagree that Christianity is historically Catholic, although this is certainly the case for Western Christianity.

Your conclusion as to the motives for those leaving the Catholic Church 500 years ago cannot be tenable. No one can know the motives. I can say Luther married a nun, some say he was mentally unstable, Knox married, Zwingli was an admitted fornicator and then married and Calvin was Catholic and his father was excommunicated. All except Calvin were priests. Henry the VIII was an adulterer and declared himself the head of the Church and in many ways many of the others set up their of fifedom. Study Geneva and Calvin. I cannot say I know their motives. I can infer they had a distaste for celibacy. I can infer that they had no regard for sin and that they had their own thirst for power.

For you to state that the reasons for “reverts” was because of “untenable” claims suggests you know each and everyone of these people. In that case an exposition of the presumed untenable claims would be enlightening and not charged with emotion as you write. I would love to know what is percieved to be untenable.

It is always good to disagree when you find something you cannot believe however not to offer an alternate solution leaves the thought at the wayside of so many other thoughts. In other words a problem without a solution is a problem. Protestant thought does not stand the test of time and is not historical. If that is all I say then how do you know that I have any way of causing anyone else to understand why I say that.

Protestant thought in any denomination can be traced back to the 1600 and several Catholic priests and Catholics. If there was a church that existed other than the Catholic Church then there would have been no hoopala and they would have just left quietly and joined it. The ex-Catholics and reverts are happenning as you explain without much fanfare or disruption because there is a place for either to go to. Those that would claim that there has always been a “body of believers” and that the Catholic Church started with Constantine and that the Church is apostate would have slipped quietly away into this imagined body of believers, that truly never existed, otherwise there would have been no so called “reformation”.

Imagine this. The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the head. The body without authority is “reforming” the Church. Can you embrace that? Can you preach that? Romans 7, Paul makes the point that the Old Covenant is like a spouse. Now if you study the people of the Old Covenant from Abraham, Moses, David to Jesus you will find that there were people that were unhappy, disgrunteled, did not follow what was required to be in the Covenant but as Paul says “has God abandoned his people, by no means”. He did not abandon them then, maintaing Israel in spite of the people. They were disperesed and Paul says then that as the Old Covenant is dead, they are free to marry the New Covenant. There was no divorce or reform of the Old Covenant. If the Old is a shadow of the New then understand that the Church is the Israel of God, a God that does not abandon his people, for to them was given the utterances of Scripture. It was true in the Old and is true in the New. Somehow God tried to show the people of Isreal what he wanted them to know in the Old and if you read the letter to Romans many did not get it. This is true today. The Church is the Israel of God and some still don’t get it. If marriage is the key to understanding God in his Church then how is it that a bunch of fallible priests and Catholics can “reform” what they have no perogative to reform. All they did was start a new man made religion that has not stood the test of time. Now this is not my doing. Protestants shot themselves in the foot at the inception and were divided amongst themselves. Luther, Calvin, Baptist, Anabaptist, Anglican. History will show you that these divisions and other existed immediately upon declaring themselves free from any authority and the divisions permutated into the many denominations hopelessly divided today. What Protestant forgot in their protestation was the East.

Let me introduce you to my little friend, The Eastern Church. Try and explain your view of history to my little friends in the East. In the East we deal with Islam. In the West we deal with White, European, arrogant man made Protestant thought. Sounds like the Chruch has its hands full.

Provide me your understanding of what the history might be so that we may be able to have a conversation. Prayer before and after is suggested. To you I extend my hand in love and ask that you seriously look at the issues you discuss. After all it is only eternity and the love of God that is the issue.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I’m a Catholic convert of seven (oh my GOSH…) years from Pentecostal Protestantism. After all that I’ve learned, there’s no way I would ever leave the Catholic Church. The other day, however, I was thinking about the scenario of Catholics becoming Protestant. From what I can tell, the number one flaw in the thought process of a Protestant convert from Catholicism is the fact that Christianity is historically Catholic. Even if someone is convinced of leaving the Church, how can they be convinced of Protestantism claims without realizing that Protestantism ultimately owes its existence to Catholicism? The question of Christianity owing its existence to Judaism can easily be cleared up by the testimony of so many to the Gospel. Protestantism’s beginnings, however are rooted in misunderstanding and in one particular case (Luther), neurosis. Can the exodus of a Protestant from the one true church be boiled down to a lack of basic historical knowledge and a lapse in logical assessment? Thoughts?

No. Because the Waldesians and other groups had left the Catholic Church even before the Reformation.

 

[Roy5]

My experience is that Catholics who become Protestants go in two different and almost contradictory directions.

 There are those who become part of 'born again' evangelical congregations. I can't speak at length about them because I know few of such people, but am aware that they are many. I hear from others that several independent, fundamentalist congregations in the area have attracted large numbers of former Catholics, including a minister or two. This is evident, also, among Spanish-speaking residents who are fervently evangelized by pentecostalists in particular.

 Most former Catholics I know well who have become Protestant have gone to mainline churches - Episcopal, Methodist, UCC, Presbyterian, etc. These appear to be quite well-educated, people who have trouble with inflexible doctrine. Once they begin to question any one doctrine, whether it may be transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception, their 'Catholic faith' can come tumbling down. They feel that if they can't go with everything, they are no longer able to embrace Catholicism. They find that the mainline churches permit wide differences of opinion on major doctrines. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Can a priest absolve people of sin? What about saints that have rather wild stories as part of their life story? What about apparitions? 

 Many well-educated people want a religion that permits the right of its members to question, differ amiably among thmselves, even feel free to publicly admit doubts. Some come to regard Catholicism as a faith that was suited to earlier ages, with a rich culture from the past, but now increasingly a relic, a faith which stresses fidelity to ideas that grew out of those times when superstition ran rampant.  

  I have just finished reading the book "Absolute Monarchs", a history of the papacy. The author seems rather objective. When you are reminded of the outrageous behavior of some of the popes it can make you wonder. There seems to be more and more of this kind of literature in circulation. 

 There are many other reasons why Catholics leave the church, often to become essentially 'nothing'. Marrying a Protestant. Divorce and remarriage certainly. The sex scandal, which has severely injured the image of priests. The gay issue. Family planning at odds with church teaching. Insistence upon priestly celibacy. The sense among some women that they still are 'second-class' in the eyes of the church. Many Protestant churches are smaller and more personal, friendly. Etc.

  What I find interesting is that so many remain Catholic who apparently don't believe essential doctrines. I believe it was in the "US Catholic" magazine that I read a survey that found - what was it - 53%? - of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. One of my good Italian friends has told me that from childhood he was told to be a good Catholic but not to take the church's teachings too seriously. 

  But, as another friend always says when religious differences come up, "same God!". He's simply not the least bit interested in magnifiying our differences.

  I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage myself and have been very interested and often perplexed by all these matters. I have come to the conclusion that God looks at our hearts and the love it holds rather than at our doctrines or our church affiliation. See Micah 6:8, Matt. 25 and I Cor. 13.

 God bless the whole world with love, understanding, and peace. Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier. Between groups like al Qaeda amd that mass murderer in Norway we can see where religious bigotry can lead us. Too often religion preaches love, humility and peace while promoting bitterness, arrogance, and hostility.

 

[CopticChristian]

Ok, you started well, but then digressed into Luther bashing, etc.

But, still, the broached subject matter is paramount in importance.

Since, biases run deeply in all the Christian denominations: Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, etc., let’s address some of your thinking from another perspective. A perspective that is sufficiently analogous to the religious view, as to be pertinent, but avoids skewing biases.

Is it true that originators, who hold the historic keys, are – due to origination and history – forever valid?

The answer is no.

Take mathematics.

For centuries, the concept of space rested upon the mathematical understanding of point.

Until, Descartes.

With his reformed thinking, the concept of space rests upon the mathematical understanding of plane.

So then, there were the point believers and the plane believers.

The plane believing came out of the roots of the point believing.

To this day, the point believers think the plane believers are wrong, and vice versa.

Who’s view is valid?

The point believers because they were the originators, who have history on their side?

The plane believers because they are the reformers, who are not bound by the past?

Today, the latest thinking is that neither are correct.

The takeaway on this is that though one’s thinking is original and historical and even foundational to future different thought, it is not – due to that – necessarily still valid thinking.

History is replete with centuries held beliefs that were shown by the “reformers” as invalid.

But, reformation is not – due to being reformation, per se – necessarily valid thinking either.

Now, let me return to the religious slant on this.

Jesus Christ was a reformer.

Martin Luther was a reformer.

Jim Jones was a reformer.

Regardless, of each’s belief, their “reformation” was from an earlier, historical view.

The Catholic Church is by far the most prolific contributor to the Christian faith: a treasure, for all who love Christ.

But, the argument We were here first, so We know best, is specious.

Luther was an Augustinian monk. Luther married a nun. Luther translated the Bible and added a word “alone” so that a passage would read “by Faith alone”. Luther criticized and was ready to dispose of the book of James, Revelation and others. I was interested to know if Luther was Neurotic. This I do not know. I have read much of his hated spew that he provided over time. He was a deeply troubled man.

Denominations are a Protestant phenomenon. It is not proper to consider The Catholic Church a denomination. Descartes, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther and Jim Jones have one thing in common. They were all men. If you happen to have a Christian belief then we would say Jesus was the God/man. This would mean that Descartes, Luther and Jim Jones were created by God and you are dialoguing about the creation and the creator. If that makes sense to you then wow. Whatever Luther, Descartes and Jones did it was in the context of creature.

Jesus was not a reformer. Take a look at the conversion of Paul. If you do not know where that is try the book of Acts. Paul as you know was the student of Gamaliel, the greatest Rabbi that ever lived. Paul knew the Old Covenant and the Old Testament like the back of his hand. Note that Paul was blinded and when he was converted like scales falling from his eyes he saw the New Covenant. If you read the writings of Paul he says nothing in the way of reform. What he says is that the Old Covenant and Old Testament need to been seen in a different light. Jesus does exactly the same thing. Wonder who Paul got his teaching methods from? The letter to the Romans & Hebrews is a clear indication that Paul is reaching out to the Jews to aid them in understanding what they know and to shed light on their darkness. This is not reform. This is explanation and education.

The Old Covenant had a genealogy and you will routinely see the heritage of many. Paul summarizes this by use of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus. The New Testament has a genealogy of Jesus. Genealogy and heritage for validity is paramount in proving to the Jews who Jesus was. It had nothing to do with who was their first. It was proof that Jesus fulfilled the entire requirement for the anticipated person with the proper genealogy. The heritage of the Old Covenant was key in explaining to Israel where they came from.

The Queen of England has a heritage to establish her royal blood line. It has nothing to do with who was here first. The Catholic Church has a heritage. It is the Israel of God with a pedigree that can be traced back to Jesus & the Apostles. What was true then is true now.

In Mark 1:15 Jesus says “repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand”. The word repent is “metanoeite” in the Greek and what it means is this…CHANGE YOUR MIND. Now if you consider that all Jesus was saying was to change your mind, not start a new religion, not who was here first and you consider that Paul was not so much converted but had a change of mind to see the Old Covenant in a new way, your outline of reform makes no sense.

So my dear brother I say to you “change your mind for the Kingdom of God is at hand” what was true then is true now. I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[CopticChristian]

My experience is that Catholics who become Protestants go in two different and almost contradictory directions.

 There are those who become part of 'born again' evangelical congregations. I can't speak at length about them because I know few of such people, but am aware that they are many. I hear from others that several independent, fundamentalist congregations in the area have attracted large numbers of former Catholics, including a minister or two. This is evident, also, among Spanish-speaking residents who are fervently evangelized by pentecostalists in particular.

 Most former Catholics I know well who have become Protestant have gone to mainline churches - Episcopal, Methodist, UCC, Presbyterian, etc. These appear to be quite well-educated, people who have trouble with inflexible doctrine. Once they begin to question any one doctrine, whether it may be transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception, their 'Catholic faith' can come tumbling down. They feel that if they can't go with everything, they are no longer able to embrace Catholicism. They find that the mainline churches permit wide differences of opinion on major doctrines. Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Can a priest absolve people of sin? What about saints that have rather wild stories as part of their life story? What about apparitions? 

 Many well-educated people want a religion that permits the right of its members to question, differ amiably among thmselves, even feel free to publicly admit doubts. Some come to regard Catholicism as a faith that was suited to earlier ages, with a rich culture from the past, but now increasingly a relic, a faith which stresses fidelity to ideas that grew out of those times when superstition ran rampant.  

  I have just finished reading the book "Absolute Monarchs", a history of the papacy. The author seems rather objective. When you are reminded of the outrageous behavior of some of the popes it can make you wonder. There seems to be more and more of this kind of literature in circulation. 

 There are many other reasons why Catholics leave the church, often to become essentially 'nothing'. Marrying a Protestant. Divorce and remarriage certainly. The sex scandal, which has severely injured the image of priests. The gay issue. Family planning at odds with church teaching. Insistence upon priestly celibacy. The sense among some women that they still are 'second-class' in the eyes of the church. Many Protestant churches are smaller and more personal, friendly. Etc.

  What I find interesting is that so many remain Catholic who apparently don't believe essential doctrines. I believe it was in the "US Catholic" magazine that I read a survey that found - what was it - 53%? - of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation. One of my good Italian friends has told me that from childhood he was told to be a good Catholic but not to take the church's teachings too seriously. 

  But, as another friend always says when religious differences come up, "same God!". He's simply not the least bit interested in magnifiying our differences.

  I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage myself and have been very interested and often perplexed by all these matters. I have come to the conclusion that God looks at our hearts and the love it holds rather than at our doctrines or our church affiliation. See Micah 6:8, Matt. 25 and I Cor. 13.

 God bless the whole world with love, understanding, and peace. Religion should be a bridge rather than a barrier. Between groups like al Qaeda amd that mass murderer in Norway we can see where religious bigotry can lead us. Too often religion preaches love, humility and peace while promoting bitterness, arrogance, and hostility.

I have read many things written about the Church and the Papacy by other than Catholics. I often gasp when I read things I know are not true and for others it may appear to be true. You may not know what is true and what is not true since you have no lens to read this stuff through. You may want to read Jesus Peter and the Keys, Scott Butler and others. Scott is my daughters Godfather in Baptism. He was a Protestant now Catholic.

I suggest you study the history of Protestant thought in the strongholds of Geneva, Europe, United Kingdom. Look where the Protestants tried to eliminate Catholicism. Study Ireland and the importatation of Scottish Protestants to eradicate the Catholic Irish. When you study, adherents.com, will provide you the data you will see that the Catholic Church has survived and in many areas has become the predominant religious belief including England. Geneva is no longer pure Calvinisitc. History has shown that the Protestant attempt to destroy/reform the Body of Christ in the last 500 years has failed and is failing. In the USA Protestant denominations are diminishing. There may be a few revolving doors around for the casual individual but in Universal numbers, scripture is being fulfilled, the gospel has been spread all over the world and is bearing fruit.

What happens with individual communities is important but ignores the larger picture of time. Pentacostalism is appealing however they do not teach primarily from the Bible, they have their own book of teachings that if challenged lead you to the big egress in the back of the Church.

Contrast your experience with history, fact, and what the new religion of Protestant thought from White Europe/reform has done for the world. Protestanism brings no culture, art, music, political stability or unity, since it is so divided amongst itself. Listen to the music of George Frederich Handel, Messiah, a Lutheran, not far removed from Catholicism. Your perspective elicits more questions than it answers. I ask you to continue to think, study and pray. Pray that we may be one.

 

[Roy5]

CopticChristian

 Hm! I've been quite interested in the Coptic Christians. It seems to me that they are part of the World Council of Churches, predominately a Protestant ecumenical group. I am concerned about the Copts in Egypt. Just this morning I was reading in the NYTimes about militant Muslims demonstrating by the thousands in Cairo. Scary.

 Now, as to the Popes, any objective student knows that the Papacy has had its notorious scandals over the years. I don't judge a church by that, though I often wonder why God didn't protect it from some of its worse abuses. I recall, for example, the "Syllabus of Errors" and its sharp condemnation of democracy by Pius IX. etc.

 Both Catholicism and Protestantism have suffered. Certainly European Catholicism has faded badly as has European Protestantism, I have visited many countries there and attended mass in great cathedrals that were all but empty save for tourists like myself. I found it interesting that a recent study of countries where people were happiest. The top five all were Protestant-majority countries. That proves nothing, but thought I would note it.

 Now, as for Protestantism, I come from a mixed background. On the Protestant side an ancestral grandfather was Belgian, became a Huguenot, was ordered to appear before the Ghent city council to be accused of heresy, knew this meant recanting, jail or death, so he fled that very night with his family to England and his grandson was part of the Puritan immigration to New England. So there was plenty of shameful persecution on both sides. Both Catholics and Protestants should repent!

  I respect Catholicism (on my paternal side). but do have trouble with some of the essential doctrines. It's not that I don't believe them, simply that I am not sure and I resist the idea that I MUST believe them to be a Catholic. Transubstantiation? The Immaculate Conception and Assumption and perpetual virginity of Mary? All sorts of wild saint stories as told by the Lords on EWTN? Etc. 

  As an American, I am aware that 55 of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Protestants, and that can't help but make an impact on my mind. It's true that the mainline denominations have suffered in the USA, mostly because of a lack of faith. The Catholic Church is similarly affected - 30,000,000 former Catholics, even though nine of every ten new immigrants to the USA (many of them illegals) are Catholics, mostly from Latin  America. 

 My own view is that we need a united Christendom - not necessarily one united church but united in spirit. However, a main barrier to that is the insistence of Roman Catholicism that it alone embraces the true faith and insists that we all agree to everything it teaches. Vatican II was a step forward. I am old enough to recall that even to enter a Protestant church was considered a serious sin! How many family baptisms, confirmations, weddings and funerals Catholics relatives were pressured to miss! Thank God for John XXIII! I'm not sure the same spirit of reconciliation exists in the Papacy today. Even if he believed Benedict XVI acted unwisely when he declared that Protestant churches were not really churches and added that Protestant ministers had no right to administer communion!

  God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture. :Let us make religion a bridge rather than a barrier. Love should supercede our religious tribal loyalties.

 

[JonNC]

=CopticChristian;8182435]This is a multifactorial problem with a mutifactorial problem. Many leave for sin. ** Luther married a nun**, Zwingli admitted fornication while a priest and later married, Knox married, Calvins father was excommunicated for embezzelment.

I’m sure you are not implying that Luther “chose” to be excommunicated simply so he could get married.

Protestants have a twisted history as you know as they explain to unkowing Catholics how the Church has kept them from the Bible.

All protestants have a twisted history???

The attacks are usually Mary worship, the need to continue in grace and it is appealing to be “saved” and be done with confession, etc.

Again, this doesn’t apply to all. I certainly understand the need to grow in grace, confess my sins and receive absolution, etc. And I absolutely don’t believe in perseverance of saints. Oh, I don’t think Catholics practice Mariolatry, either.

Many Catholics are just depressed humans looking for better music, get caught up in emotional responses and in my opinion as I said know little of their Faith and history as you have outlined. If they knew what you have posted they would not leave. It would be fair to say they do not know what you have posted.

This almost comes off sounding patrinizing or condescending. I would never say this of the Lutherans who convert to Catholicism, some of whom regularly post on CAF - Newbie2and Joe370 to name a couple. Rather, I would say they prayerfully considered where the Spirit was leading them, even if I think they are wrong (which isn’t necessarily the case).

Surely, not all Catholics who convert to protestantism or Orthodoxy are ignorant lemmings willing to be led off a cliff, or slackers just looking for an easier road.

Jon