Catholic to Protestant

[CopticChristian]

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

All protestants have a twisted history???

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.

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

The twisted history of Protestant thought ranges from some sort of claim to Apostolic times to now to the honest appraisal that 1600 the Church was the Antichrist and the new religion of white europeans was necessary. The history points out some notion of the Ancient Church to Augustine, issues from that time to 1600 and the necessary revolt. Tell me your history of Protestant thought so I may believe it is not twisted.

Luther was an Augustinian monk who added words to the Bible, who questioned relevancy of certain books of The Bible, married a nun and that is fact.

Mary worship was practiced and has been condemned. Look up Collyridianism.

I offer that I do not know where the Spirit leads anyone except to the truth.

By the way Luther was wrong in his quote. He forgot to add “works of law” but as usual it is OK for Protestant to add or subtract and interpret as they see fit. You may want to look at the King James only proponents if for no other reason to see the many translations that are made to suit whatever.

 

[JonNC]

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

=CopticChristian;8184254]The twisted history of Protestant thought ranges from some sort of claim to Apostolic times to now to the honest appraisal that 1600 the Church was the Antichrist and the new religion of white europeans was necessary. The history points out some notion of the Ancient Church to Augustine, issues from that time to 1600 and the necessary revolt. Tell me your history of Protestant thought so I may believe it is not twisted.

Now you’ve changed the statement. You’ve added to your original the word “thought”. Do I think that there were popes of the times leading to the reformation that were hideous, corrupt men, whose actions directly led to the events of the 1500,'s, you bet. No twisting of history there. Do I believe that men of both sides hold blame for the sad division of the western Church? Yes I do. No twisting there, either. Do I believe that the papacy has claimed for itself a primacy not found in the early Church? Again, yes I do.
If you think that my thoughts are twisted, fine. But I would contend that the history I’ve portrayed is not. And it is your first statement that I was responding.

Luther was an Augustinian monk who added words to the Bible, who questioned relevancy of certain books of The Bible, married a nun and that is fact.

An Augustinian friar. Every translator can be said to “add” words to scripture, and questioning the canonicity of certain books - not the relevancy - was permitted in Luther’s time, all the way back to Eusebius. These are the facts of history. My question regarding Luther’s marriage was simply this: do you believe that he allowed himself to be excommunicated simply because he wanted to get married?

Mary worship was practiced and has been condemned. Look up Collyridianism.

I don’t have to look it up. As I said before, I don’t believe Catholics practice Mariolatry.

I offer that I do not know where the Spirit leads anyone except to the truth.

Well said.

By the way Luther was wrong in his quote. He forgot to add “works of law” but as usual it is OK for Protestant to add or subtract and interpret as they see fit. You may want to look at the King James only proponents if for no other reason to see the many translations that are made to suit whatever.

Lost me. Where did he forget to add “works of law”?

Jon

 

[Kouyate42]

Along with the poor catchesis, I’d argue that one of the biggest problems is that now, like in all aspects of society, that people want ‘feel-good’ worship and feel-good religion. I’ve attended quite a number of different churches and one of the things that struck me is that whilst there’s a lot of effort put into putting on a good worship band/presentation for the sermon/lighting/getting the crowd participating, there’s little actual emphasis on what the actual Bible teaches. You’ll note that the Catholic Church is still one of the few churches which actively teaches about Hell, salvation and sin, all things which are gradually disappearing from Protestant church teaching because they’re seen as subjects which will drive people away from Christianity.

From what I’ve personally seen, the message of the Protestant churches is to make people feel good- ‘we’re saved!’ type messages’ and others which aim to please worshippers and not God.

The Catholic Church is one of the few churches to still have definite teachings on many subjects, and to have stuck by them for close to 2000 years. It’s also the only church I’ve seen truly united as a church- you can go to a Catholic church anywhere in the world and the service and the message being taught are the same as each other (with MINOR differences).

 

[JonNC]

=Kouyate42;8184366]Along with the poor catchesis, I’d argue that one of the biggest problems is that now, like in all aspects of society, that people want ‘feel-good’ worship and feel-good religion. I’ve attended quite a number of different churches and one of the things that struck me is that whilst there’s a lot of effort put into putting on a good worship band/presentation for the sermon/lighting/getting the crowd participating, there’s little actual emphasis on what the actual Bible teaches. You’ll note that the Catholic Church is still one of the few churches which actively teaches about Hell, salvation and sin, all things which are gradually disappearing from Protestant church teaching because they’re seen as subjects which will drive people away from Christianity.

From what I’ve personally seen, the message of the Protestant churches is to make people feel good- ‘we’re saved!’ type messages’ and others which aim to please worshippers and not God.

Well, many of the things you say here wouldn’t apply to confessional Lutheranism, but you have a point. It may be precisely because we refuse to go the way of the mega-church feel good apporach that our numbers have suffered recently. I suspect, however, that this will run its course, and folks, particularly as they get older, will begin to want more than praise bands and power points.

The Catholic Church is one of the few churches to still have definite teachings on many subjects, and to have stuck by them for close to 2000 years. It’s also the only church I’ve seen truly united as a church- you can go to a Catholic church anywhere in the world and the service and the message being taught are the same as each other (with MINOR differences).

While I would probably be able to receive the Eucharist at most Lutheran Churches worldwide, the size and scope of the Catholic Church is a definite advantage for a Catholic.

Jon

 

[Kouyate42]

Well, many of the things you say here wouldn’t apply to confessional Lutheranism, but you have a point. It may be precisely because we refuse to go the way of the mega-church feel good apporach that our numbers have suffered recently. I suspect, however, that this will run its course, and folks, particularly as they get older, will begin to want more than praise bands and power points.

Like anything, feel-good religion WILL have its day and eventually disappear.

I must admit that I am not completely innocent of this issue- I used to be a praise and worship bassist and cellist in a Baptist church and did many conferences and evangelical events as a speaker too. And the precise reason for my leaving was that although I’d accepted Jesus as Savior and also gotten involved in a church, the feel-good atmosphere did little to make me feel as though I was actually aligning myself to God.

People will eventually realize that cooking a good meal (like a true Church service or Mass) is not going to be replaced with junk food (feel-good religion).

While I would probably be able to receive the Eucharist at most Lutheran Churches worldwide, the size and scope of the Catholic Church is a definite advantage for a Catholic.

Jon

I must admit that where I live there is not a great Lutheran church membership so I can only apologize for my ignorance on the matter.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Your conclusion as to the motives for those leaving the Catholic Church 500 years ago cannot be tenable. No one can know the motives.

If you’re interested, you can read works like the Carmina Burana and get a good idea about why people in what is now Germany left the church during the Reformation. People had been demanding clerical/hierarchical reforms for 300 years or more. Whether you agree with them or not, people were finally fed up and left, once they had a viable alternative they could live with.

I can say Luther married a nun…

I’m sure you are aware of the logical fallacy of ad hominem. The Reformation was a much broader phenomenon than something restricted to the men you list here.

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.

If you read my post more carefully, you’ll note that this was the explanation given to me by the reverts I have spoken with at length in my congregation. Briefly, their problems relate to claims of historic universal authority dating back to the beginning of Christianity. They would say that the hierarchical primacy claimed today–most recently expressed in the ability of the Pope to teach “definitively,” as a sort of rolling infallibility (e.g., see Evangelium Vitae), has no basis in historic Christianity, or basically, that the Catholic church has seriously confused the Magisterium with magisters–e.g. Fides et Ratio 50. These are intelligent people who understand the Catholic faith, so they are not some sort of unchatechized drifters who don’t know any better.

It is always good to disagree…

I have no idea what you are saying here. I wouldn’t even begin to know what anyone would mean by “Protestant thought” since Protestantism (if there is such a thing) is a very diverse phenomenon.

…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”.

See above. I can’t really tell what you are saying, but I have a feeling perhaps that you are probably conflating “Protestantism” with Evangelical fundamentalism. Of course other churches existed besides the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation, but they were not viable alternatives for Western Europeans in the 16th century.

Imagine this. The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the head. The body without authority is “reforming” the Church.

Again, I can’t really tell what you are saying here. Who, in your view, should reform the church? Divisions and disputes have existed since the beginning of Christianity. If the Catholic (Latinate) church is the true “Israel of God” [sic] where does that leave the rest of historic Christianity?

Actually, Luther draws quite a bit on the theology of the Eastern Churches (for example, in his ideas about the canon) to build his theological arguments.

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by “little friend” but your use of the term comes across as pretty sarcastic. First off, to which Eastern Church do you refer? There are many. And I think they would largely agree, actually. To put it bluntly, the Latinate church has irritated, goaded and finally broken ties with all of the various Eastern Churches at some point in history, largely stemming from its own claims of authority. People weren’t buying it then or now.

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.

Frankly, your tone belies what you say here.

If you’re really interested in church history, I would suggest beginning with Philip Jenkin’s, The Lost History of Christianity. He’s hardly anti-Catholic, but neither is he interested in an apologetic skewing of church history to support Catholic claims of universalizing authority. If you are interested in the Eastern Churches and their interactions with Islam, I think you will enjoy it.

Sorry that I had to shorten your quotes to meet the space limitation.

 

[hn160]

Like anything, feel-good religion WILL have its day and eventually disappear.

I must admit that I am not completely innocent of this issue- I used to be a praise and worship bassist and cellist in a Baptist church and did many conferences and evangelical events as a speaker too. And the precise reason for my leaving was that although I’d accepted Jesus as Savior and also gotten involved in a church, the feel-good atmosphere did little to make me feel as though I was actually aligning myself to God.

People will eventually realize that cooking a good meal (like a true Church service or Mass) is not going to be replaced with junk food (feel-good religion).

I must admit that where I live there is not a great Lutheran church membership so I can only apologize for my ignorance on the matter.

I don’t think that at a Lutheran Church, you will find a “feel good religion”, what you will find is Christ comes to us in the confession and Absolution and the Word read and preached and in the Eucharist. The sermons will be Law and Gospel and Lutherans believe in the Theology of the Cross. Lutherans believe that their Confessions are the correct expositions of the Scriptures.

 

[CopticChristian]

Now you’ve changed the statement. You’ve added to your original the word “thought”. Do I think that there were popes of the times leading to the reformation that were hideous, corrupt men, whose actions directly led to the events of the 1500,'s, you bet. No twisting of history there. Do I believe that men of both sides hold blame for the sad division of the western Church? Yes I do. No twisting there, either. Do I believe that the papacy has claimed for itself a primacy not found in the early Church? Again, yes I do.
If you think that my thoughts are twisted, fine. But I would contend that the history I’ve portrayed is not. And it is your first statement that I was responding.

An Augustinian friar. Every translator can be said to “add” words to scripture, and questioning the canonicity of certain books - not the relevancy - was permitted in Luther’s time, all the way back to Eusebius. These are the facts of history. My question regarding Luther’s marriage was simply this: do you believe that he allowed himself to be excommunicated simply because he wanted to get married?

I don’t have to look it up. As I said before, I don’t believe Catholics practice Mariolatry.

Well said.

Lost me. Where did he forget to add “works of law”?

Jon

All I asked for was your outline of Christian history and all I got was something about the Popes.

 

[CopticChristian]

If you’re interested, you can read works like the Carmina Burana and get a good idea about why people in what is now Germany left the church during the Reformation. People had been demanding clerical/hierarchical reforms for 300 years or more. Whether you agree with them or not, people were finally fed up and left, once they had a viable alternative they could live with.

I’m sure you are aware of the logical fallacy of ad hominem. The Reformation was a much broader phenomenon than something restricted to the men you list here.

If you read my post more carefully, you’ll note that this was the explanation given to me by the reverts I have spoken with at length in my congregation. Briefly, their problems relate to claims of historic universal authority dating back to the beginning of Christianity. They would say that the hierarchical primacy claimed today–most recently expressed in the ability of the Pope to teach “definitively,” as a sort of rolling infallibility (e.g., see Evangelium Vitae), has no basis in historic Christianity, or basically, that the Catholic church has seriously confused the Magisterium with magisters–e.g. Fides et Ratio 50. These are intelligent people who understand the Catholic faith, so they are not some sort of unchatechized drifters who don’t know any better.

I have no idea what you are saying here. I wouldn’t even begin to know what anyone would mean by “Protestant thought” since Protestantism (if there is such a thing) is a very diverse phenomenon.

See above. I can’t really tell what you are saying, but I have a feeling perhaps that you are probably conflating “Protestantism” with Evangelical fundamentalism. Of course other churches existed besides the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation, but they were not viable alternatives for Western Europeans in the 16th century.

Again, I can’t really tell what you are saying here. Who, in your view, should reform the church? Divisions and disputes have existed since the beginning of Christianity. If the Catholic (Latinate) church is the true “Israel of God” [sic] where does that leave the rest of historic Christianity?

Actually, Luther draws quite a bit on the theology of the Eastern Churches (for example, in his ideas about the canon) to build his theological arguments.

I’m not sure what you mean by “little friend” but your use of the term comes across as pretty sarcastic. First off, to which Eastern Church do you refer? There are many. And I think they would largely agree, actually. To put it bluntly, the Latinate church has irritated, goaded and finally broken ties with all of the various Eastern Churches at some point in history, largely stemming from its own claims of authority. People weren’t buying it then or now.

Frankly, your tone belies what you say here.

If you’re really interested in church history, I would suggest beginning with Philip Jenkin’s, The Lost History of Christianity. He’s hardly anti-Catholic, but neither is he interested in an apologetic skewing of church history to support Catholic claims of universalizing authority. If you are interested in the Eastern Churches and their interactions with Islam, I think you will enjoy it.

Sorry that I had to shorten your quotes to meet the space limitation.

You have brought to my attention the lack of Charity in my tone. You are correct. I ask you to forgive this transgression. I honestly see Protestant thought, Protestanism at its inception in the same vain as I see Pelagianism, Arianism, and other forms of thought. The attacks in those years were on other parts of the Body of Christ, the head and in most recent years the attack is on the Body not the head. The Protestant thought that the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is Apostate, seat of Satan, the Anti-Christ causes me to see things as other than I should. I should and will try to be more Charitable. Please forgive me again.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

. Do I believe that the papacy has claimed for itself a primacy not found in the early Church? Again, yes I do.

Jon, my friend,

Then you do not believe Christ when he told the leaders of the Church, the Apostles, that He would be with them until the end of the world (Mt 28:20 KJV). And you do not believe Him when He said “the powers of death” (RSV) or “the gates of hell” (KJV) would not prevail against His Church. If the successor of Peter is a liar and a usurper and a power-monger, claiming for himself a primacy that was not bestowed on him by Christ, then these promises were not kept.

Every translator can be said to “add” words to scripture, and questioning the canonicity of certain books - not the relevancy - was permitted in Luther’s time, all the way back to Eusebius. These are the facts of history.

Eusebius wrote 314 - 324. The canon was not determined until 382 at the earliest.

You say that others besides Luther questioned the canonicity of certain books. The Church considered her canon closed as early as 405 when Pope Innocent I affirmed it. Luther didn’t just question certain books, he physically removed them from their place in the canon, placed them in an appendix, and wrote prefaces explaining why he did not regard them as Scripture.

Of James, for example, he wrote:
I will not have him [James] in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (“Preface to James,” 1522 edition, Works of Martin Luther, Volume VI, p. 477-9) .

Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writing of an apostle. Someday I will use James to fire my stove.
(Weimar, “Tischreden “(5) p. 5854)

Peace be wth you,

Jim Dandy

 

[TimothyH]

There are a large number of people who have left the Church for whatever reason, and don’t return bacause of sin.

Evangelical Christianity is very appealing to these because they feel accepted and loved in a non-judgemental enviornment - “just the way you are.” Being saved first and then letting God change you is more appealing than having to try to change with God’s help.

You can spot these a mile away actually. Challenging church authority, forgiveness of sins by a priest, papal infallibilty… when a former Catholic is very vocal on these issues, you can bet there is some past sin or some habitual sin going on.

-Tim-

 

[7_Sorrows]

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.

i don’t understand how you see Jesus Christ as a reformer. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. i don’t think he was reforming Judaism.
how do you see Jim Jones as a reformer? he was the leader of a cult in my opinion and he was taken over by power and greed.

 

[cooterhein]

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.

You’re actually in the minority among Catholic converts from Protestantism. The majority of people like you wind up being Protestant again within two years of completing their time in RCIA and being baptized into the CC.

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

If you look for flaws and don’t stay open to other things- like, for example, reasons for leaving Catholicism that are good and legitimate- I’m sure that’s all you’ll find.

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?

Same way we know that empires and monarchies are much older than democracy, republics, and parliamentary systems. Same way we know that the founders of these newer forms of government initially came out of an older way of doing things, and the philosophers and thinkers who came up with those ideas (Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau) did so while being ruled by a monarch. Same way the people who initially broke away from monarchies and declared independence from them had a strong tendency to hate and demonize the older ways while they were fighting them, but monarchies and empires are regarded more neutrally by people living in a republic that’s over 200 years removed from the initial conflict.

Here in America, we’re committed to a better way of doing things. That applies equally to government and religion. Democracy is new, republics are new, and they are better than the older way of doing things. That doesn’t mean it’s right for us to demonize anyone who’s ever lived in a monarchy or empire- they were probably just doing the best they could at the time, and that’s what we continue to do now.

The same goes for religion. Protestantism in America today is very different from first-millennium Christianity (although, let’s be honest, so is modern-day Catholicism). It’s actually very different from how European Protestantism was throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, too. We’re always working on this thing, and we’re always trying to do better.

Catholicism is older. Noted. The first Protestants were born into Catholicism. Noted. The founding Protestant fathers were flawed in many cases, and the churches they founded had a lot to work on. Noted, and we have been working on those things.

I note all of this, and I close by saying the initial Reformers- flawed as they were- still managed to be an improvement on what Catholicism was at that time. Protestantism has come a long way since then, and it’s improved greatly. Catholicism has done a lot to improve itself as well, but…let’s be honest…Protestantism is still a better alternative. Not older; nobody’s saying that. Just better.

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?

No. If you must insist on explaining Protestantism by means of mental defects, though, maybe you can tell me why it’s happened to so many Catholics and so few of the Orthodox.

Thoughts?

You’ve been Catholic for 7 years now, right? Maybe it’s time to catch up with some of the people you got to know as you went through RCIA. If you’d done this two years in, the stats tell us you could have had your pick from 55% of them and you could have asked them why they’ve now left Catholicism. By now, though, you can probably have your pick from more like 60% of them.

Those people are just like you. They started in Protestantism like you, they went through RCIA right along with you, quite a few of them might have been baptized into the Catholic Church on the same day as you. (That number would be especially large if you did the Easter baptism thing). It’s clear that you have some unfortunate stereotypes of Protestants having to do with defects, ignorance, lack of knowledge, etc. Maybe that has something to do with the way you were as a Protestant and now you’re generalizing to everyone; I’m not really sure. (Side note: There do tend to be some pretty major differences between a non-denom Pentecostal and other kinds of Protestants- ie., confessional Protestants- when it comes to their familiarity with history. Might be good to bear that in mind). For now, though, how about you check in with your fellow converts, the majority of which are now reverts. Try finding out why it is that over half of them have left Catholicism after walking the exact same road as you.

 

[EzraJacob]

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 wouldn’t say a lack of basic historical knowledge. But a misunderstanding of the teachings. And sometimes even because of how much “easier” OSAS and other protestant doctrines can be, when compared to the true standard of Christ and his Church.

I mean, that was the reason I first left Catholicism. I was in RCIA (been baptized but raised non-religious) and doing good, but then left for Judaism. In that way I did not have to be reminded and acknowledge my sins, mainly lust. But after almost a year of practicing Judaism, I began to want the…beauty of Catholicism and the Glory of worshiping the Father,Son and Holy Spirit. I actually, literally, missed praying the Rosary and the peace that I have from knowing Mary is praying for me as well as the Saints. It all came from a misunderstand and confusion of the Trinity. But since I have come back, I have found my understanding. As if God opened my eyes and allowed me to see. I sort of almost feel as if it was dictated to God. That I gain the understanding of the Trinity after my journey through Judaism and the knowledge I gained from it. Which has allowed me to understand and percieve things much more maturely and better then before.

 

[EzraJacob]

You’re actually in the minority among Catholic converts from Protestantism. The majority of people like you wind up being Protestant again within two years of completing their time in RCIA and being baptized into the CC.

.

Where is the proof of this? That the majority of Protestant converts to Catholicism end up reverting within two years?

And you can not lie, about how much of ignorance Protestants have when it comes to Catholicism and actual Catholic teachings. he great majority of Protestants always do.

And another question, if Protestantism is the way Christ wanted, why did it take so long for the true way to Christ, to come about?

 

[EzraJacob]

. Catholicism has done a lot to improve itself as well, but…let’s be honest…Protestantism is still a better alternative. Not older; nobody’s saying that. Just better.

How? Protestants ignore the Gospels and the Apostles. There are so many doctrinal flaws in Protestantism. That there is no wonder that most protestants are people who feel they can do whatever they want, even when it contradicts the word of Christ and the teachings. Because they believe they are going to heaven due to doctrines such as faith alone and osas, no matter is they have no remorse and do no penance for any sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

You’re actually in the minority among Catholic converts from Protestantism. The majority of people like you wind up being Protestant again within two years of completing their time in RCIA and being baptized into the CC.

If you look for flaws and don’t stay open to other things- like, for example, reasons for leaving Catholicism that are good and legitimate- I’m sure that’s all you’ll find.

Same way we know that empires and monarchies are much older than democracy, republics, and parliamentary systems. Same way we know that the founders of these newer forms of government initially came out of an older way of doing things, and the philosophers and thinkers who came up with those ideas (Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau) did so while being ruled by a monarch. Same way the people who initially broke away from monarchies and declared independence from them had a strong tendency to hate and demonize the older ways while they were fighting them, but monarchies and empires are regarded more neutrally by people living in a republic that’s over 200 years removed from the initial conflict.

Here in America, we’re committed to a better way of doing things. That applies equally to government and religion. Democracy is new, republics are new, and they are better than the older way of doing things. That doesn’t mean it’s right for us to demonize anyone who’s ever lived in a monarchy or empire- they were probably just doing the best they could at the time, and that’s what we continue to do now.

The same goes for religion. Protestantism in America today is very different from first-millennium Christianity (although, let’s be honest, so is modern-day Catholicism). It’s actually very different from how European Protestantism was throughout the 15th and 16th centuries, too. We’re always working on this thing, and we’re always trying to do better.

Catholicism is older. Noted. The first Protestants were born into Catholicism. Noted. The founding Protestant fathers were flawed in many cases, and the churches they founded had a lot to work on. Noted, and we have been working on those things.

I note all of this, and I close by saying the initial Reformers- flawed as they were- still managed to be an improvement on what Catholicism was at that time. Protestantism has come a long way since then, and it’s improved greatly. Catholicism has done a lot to improve itself as well, but…let’s be honest…Protestantism is still a better alternative. Not older; nobody’s saying that. Just better.

No. If you must insist on explaining Protestantism by means of mental defects, though, maybe you can tell me why it’s happened to so many Catholics and so few of the Orthodox.

You’ve been Catholic for 7 years now, right? Maybe it’s time to catch up with some of the people you got to know as you went through RCIA. If you’d done this two years in, the stats tell us you could have had your pick from 55% of them and you could have asked them why they’ve now left Catholicism. By now, though, you can probably have your pick from more like 60% of them.

Those people are just like you. They started in Protestantism like you, they went through RCIA right along with you, quite a few of them might have been baptized into the Catholic Church on the same day as you. (That number would be especially large if you did the Easter baptism thing). It’s clear that you have some unfortunate stereotypes of Protestants having to do with defects, ignorance, lack of knowledge, etc. Maybe that has something to do with the way you were as a Protestant and now you’re generalizing to everyone; I’m not really sure. (Side note: There do tend to be some pretty major differences between a non-denom Pentecostal and other kinds of Protestants- ie., confessional Protestants- when it comes to their familiarity with history. Might be good to bear that in mind). For now, though, how about you check in with your fellow converts, the majority of which are now reverts. Try finding out why it is that over half of them have left Catholicism after walking the exact same road as you.

I was reminded that my tone was other than Charitable and I admit it. Your tone here is directed towards one individual and not necessarily enlightening. I suggest you speak to the broader question.

 

[cooterhein]

Where is the proof of this? That the majority of Protestant converts to Catholicism end up reverting within two years?

Believe it or not, it was a Catholic on this forum that initially brought this to my attention. I started a thread inquiring about the number of Tiber swimmers that currently reside in America, and a Catholic member of CAF mentioned this relevant piece of data. If you go look at the thread, you’ll see that I didn’t make a big deal about it at the time. But I remembered it and verified it as best I could later on, and it turns out that actually is the way it is. It was kind of hard to find, though, and I don’t have any of the sources on hand right now.

If you’d been just a little less demanding, I might have told you I’ll do my best to retrace my steps and get you the information this weekend. But since you went with the “Where is the proof of this?” approach, I’m more inclined to tell you go find it yourself. It’s not a big deal, and it’s exactly what I eventually did.

And you can not lie, about how much of ignorance Protestants have when it comes to Catholicism and actual Catholic teachings. he great majority of Protestants always do.

Protestant churches whose origins are most closely related to a direct break from Catholicism are most likely to have members that are reasonably well-versed in Catholicism. As I said before, Confessional Protestants tend to do quite well here. Mainline Protestantism as a whole is more of a mixed bag, although the mainline Protestants that also happen to be Confessional tend to do better. At least when you compare their knowledge of Catholicism to your knowledge of them, anyway. They at least know the major claims that Catholicism makes of itself and understand why someone might want to be Catholic, if all those things were true. By comparison, do you have an understanding of why a Protestant might choose to be a Confessional Protestant instead of one that isn’t confessional? Do you have any idea how that conversation goes when a Confessional Protestant has to give reasons for why it’s a good idea to be that way? And oh boy, how about this- what if I asked you about the basic differences between one Confession and another? Would you immediately plead ignorance on the basis of having “the genuine article” and having no need of familiarizing yourself with “those counterfeits”? (Psst! This is how you lose in a competitive religious marketplace!) How about the mainline vs. not-mainline discussion? Do you know how it would go down if a Confessional Protestant from a mainline church wanted to convince someone like me (non Confessional, not mainline) that I should be both of those things rather than neither of them? Do you even know where they would start?

I’ll tell you this- if that kind of person’s talking to me, you can bet that they have a pretty good idea of what you’d be saying to me about the CC. That, and they have a few counter-arguments of their own. You can bet that, and you usually won’t lose. But do you have any idea what they would say about themselves? Wait, let me guess…“Blah blah, something stupid, we’re not Catholic we’re defective it’s nice here we’ll make you feel good and you don’t have to worry about the sin thing.” Yeah, that’s great, but how do I know when it’s specifically a Confessional Protestant from a mainline denomination? Are you capable of differentiating between that kind of person and people who describe themselves as non-denominational? Do you know what we’d say to each other if we sat down and talked about ourselves? At a bare minimum, do you even know how likely it is that we’ll try to “convert” each other?

With that said, the fastest-growing portions of American Protestantism are also the ones that are less likely to know anything about Catholicism. You do see a trend in America where Catholicism is slowly becoming less prevalent due to very poor net conversion numbers and less relevant overall, but that’s not just an American thing- it’s a worldwide phenomenon as well.

There are certain types of Protestant churches where you could walk in, ask a few questions about Catholicism, and observe that most of the adults there know barely anything. But most Protestant churches aren’t like that- although I will admit they’re something of a trending minority.

And another question, if Protestantism is the way Christ wanted, why did it take so long for the true way to Christ, to come about?

I don’t claim to belong to the One True Church. I don’t think any single church can make a legitimate “One, True” claim of their leadership. I actually don’t believe Christ instituted a particular type of human authority that was supposed to rule over every Christian on planet Earth for all eternity, Amen. There were some basic guidelines for how churches should be structured and operated on a local level, and there was also an early precedent for getting their leaders together sometimes so they could reach consensus when possible and when not, well, I guess they don’t. (That’s why Christians never reached a consensus on the books of the Old Testament in the first millennium. Or at any point thereafter, matter of fact).

Where was I?

Oh yeah, the true way to Christ. The way to Christ has always been the same. That’s not something we have any interest in changing.

The basics of the Gospel message are essentially the same. You’re familiar with the Wordless Book, yes? From what I understand, a basic presentation of that sort of thing is generally deemed thoroughly and completely “Catholic” in places like this. The little matter of “what people will rule over all the other people that are Christians” is of some import, and to that I say “Lighten up!” and you will probably tell me I need to take it more seriously. Either way though, we should be able to agree that it’s not so critical as to change the basics of what the Gospel is.

 

[cooterhein]

How? Protestants ignore the Gospels and the Apostles. There are so many doctrinal flaws in Protestantism.

Considering how we accept fewer books as canonical than you do, and also taking into account how one of those doctrines is Sola Scriptura, how does it make sense for us to ignore the Gospels and the Apostles? One, what would we replace them with, and Two, Freaking A, that’s practically the whole New Testament! If we really are ignoring all that, Protestantism must be scarcely discernible from Reformed Judaism!

That there is no wonder that most protestants are people who feel they can do whatever they want,

If Protestants feel like they can do whatever they want, they’ll stay at home on Sunday. You know why they’ll do that? Because if they do go to church, they’ll get a regular dose of nice people who nevertheless have an interest in making sure Jesus is in charge of their life instead of them. So what does this kind of Protestant do?

This kind of Protestant stays home on Sunday and doesn’t go to church, because that’s what they want to do. And when they do that, we eventually stop calling them Protestants. If you’re going somewhere on something like a regular basis, you’ll continue to describe yourself as a Protestant. But if you go to church for weddings and funerals more often than you do for a Sunday service and you don’t really have a “church home,” you’re not going to describe yourself as a Protestant and neither will anyone else.

It tends to be more of a clear-cut delineation among Protestants. Catholics, though- there’s a number of factors at work that might cause someone to keep calling himself a Catholic even though he’s a Creaster at best, hasn’t been to confession in years, and maybe he’s not even 100% on the existence of God. Now I’m not saying the vast majority of Catholics are as clueless as all that, I’m not even saying it’s a large number that should be troublesome to you. I’m just saying cultural Catholicism is a thing for some Catholics and it’s not really a thing for Protestants.

 

[CopticChristian]

Believe it or not, it was a Catholic on this forum that initially brought this to my attention. I started a thread inquiring about the number of Tiber swimmers that currently reside in America, and a Catholic member of CAF mentioned this relevant piece of data. If you go look at the thread, you’ll see that I didn’t make a big deal about it at the time. But I remembered it and verified it as best I could later on, and it turns out that actually is the way it is. It was kind of hard to find, though, and I don’t have any of the sources on hand right now.

Protestant churches whose origins are most closely related to a direct break from How about the mainline vs. not-mainline discussion? Do you know how it would go down if a Confessional Protestant from a mainline church wanted to convince someone like me (non Confessional, not mainline) that I should be both of those things rather than neither of them? Do you even know where they would start?

Oh yeah, the true way to Christ. The way to Christ has always been the same. That’s not something we have any interest in changing.

The basics of the Gospel message are essentially the same… Either way though, we should be able to agree that it’s not so critical as to change the basics of what the Gospel is.

I believe you are completely wrong on your perception that Catholicism is on the decline. I did this research too. www.adherents.com is the place to go. The recollection I have was that if you took Catholicism and Orhtodoxy and tallied the numbers you would find that compared to the total number of people in the world it would represent about 25%. The other 25% would be Muslim accounting for 50% of the World population. The remainder of the 50% would be Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant of all types. Calvinists are on the decline, Pentacostals and Mormons are on the incline.

I could not imagine the notion of being Protestant in any way or even trying to decide confessional vs nonconfessional.

I would like to know what it is you perceive “the gospel” to be. Is it Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?