Catholic to Protestant

[Roy5]

Coptic Christian

I assume you are a Coptic Catholic. I have a doctor who is a Copt of the largest group of Christians in Egypt. Orthodox, though not quite like the Greeks and Russians. As I recall, they have their own Pope. They also have been accused of monophysitism, which they deny. Etc. Anyway, that group is affiliated with the World Council of Churches. I have great respect for them, and, indeed, for many other Christians - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. There are some - like Mormons - who are in a different category altogether, with different prophets, a different scripture, etc. Mormons are generally fine, moral people, but they fo have a very different religion.

Probably I simply am less literal than both traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants. There is much in the Bible that inspires me, of course, but some that troubles me. Do I really believe that God repented that he made man, decided to drown everybody but Noah and his family, had Noah build an ark to hold two of all animals (more of some), then keep them fed on that ark for 150 days, promising never to drown everybody again. No, I don't believe it. My God would never drown - for example - all those innocent children, plus babies in the womb.

And don't expect me to believe that God ordered Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and insisted that Saul murder every remaining Amalekite. I certainly don't like that chant: "Saul has killed his thousands  but David his ten thousands!" Or, that outrageous story from II King 2 - how two she-bears tore apart 42 children after Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord. What had they done? Mocked his bald head. Give me a break!

 We could go on and on. Even in the New Testament, when I go to mass women read the lessons and don't wear coverings on their head. As I recall Paul said that women should keep silent in such and have their heads covered. What about slaves should obey their masters - which could be (and was) interpreted as an endorsement of slavery. It appears that believers pick and choose verses they like. (Lest I be misunderstood), I think women should be ordained.)

 I'm for the spirit of unity (not union) among Christians (and everyone, for that matter). However, the idea that we all should think in lock-step fashion isn't for me. We have this magnificant, miraculous, mammoth and mysterious world and I can't believe that we're not permitted by God to feast on it with our brains - wondering, questioning, pondering, yes, doubting. So much of theology came from a time when telescopes were poor and microscopes were non-existent. So the Church Fathers believed the sun revolved around the earth, had absolutely no concept of maybe a million solar systems out in space, imagined a hell in the middle of the earth, thought disease was caused by sin and/or Satan, etc. Why are they given such prominence by some when they were so mistaken in their worldview?

 I have become attracted to mainline Protestantism because it seems so open-minded when it comes to different perspectives. It preaches a deep faith in God but doesn't insist that we all think alike. We can believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. We can see the Pope as the Bishop of Rome or not? We can have various opinions when it comes to a variety of doctrines. That appeals to me. I know this can offend others, but so be it. Actually millions of Catholics differ from their church already. I subscribe to several Catholic periodicals and read a poll in one of them that found that 53% of American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiaton. Etc.

 But my main point remains: the gospel focuses on love and not on doctrines. You can find verses to support all kinds of opinions on all sorts of subjects. But the theme of love is the message Christ left with us. 

 God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.

 

[CompSciGuy]

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

The Waldensians and those other groups were heretics. Many protestants will point to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Iconoclasts and other heretics, but they actually looked into what these groups believed, they would find, ironically, than these protestants would find that their own beliefs are actually closer to the Catholic Church.

 

[LinuxUser]

When I left the Church I did so because I could not reconcile it with Scripture, I just can’t seem to stay away even though I still am not sure about the Church

 

[Roy5]

CompSciGuy

 If I'm not mistaken, the Waldensians and the Methodists have united in Italy. That must mean that the Waldensians were not these wild heretics.

 Even if they were, the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic authorities that heretics should be executed was and is outrageous! Such bloodbaths is one reason there is still hostility today. Tales of intense persecution and murder by both Protestants and Catholics still feed misunderstanding and bitterness these centuries later.

 

[CompSciGuy]

CompSciGuy

 If I'm not mistaken, the Waldensians and the Methodists have united in Italy. That must mean that the Waldensians were not these wild heretics.

 Even if they were, the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic authorities that heretics should be executed was and is outrageous! Such bloodbaths is one reason there is still hostility today. Tales of intense persecution and murder by both Protestants and Catholics still feed misunderstanding and bitterness these centuries later.

The Waldensian Church has changed over time. And as for the executions, the Catholic Church was not the only group of people who killed because of religion. The reformers did the same thing. Both thought that they were doing the will of God by keeping the heretics from preaching a false gospel to the people, thus protecting souls from damnation. They were human errors, not institutional ones, and none of us today are old enough to have been involved in them. So bitterness isn’t really in order.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

There are many reasons Catholic leave the Church. However, I’m convinced to some degree it’s based on misunderstanding and being constantly attacked by family, others and life situations. I went through many different moods during my life. Though baptized Catholic, I was never raised as Catholic. In fact, I did not know I was baptized Catholic until my dad decided to send me and my older brother to a priest for first communion preparation. It seems to line up when a change in the stance for divorced Catholics came about. Prior to 1972, Catholics were not allowed to receive communion if they were married and without a declaration of nullity. My mother hated Catholicism with a passion. She was never Catholic.

I felt like I was surrounded by hypocrits, even in the clergy becuase of the kind of inconsiderations projected onto me, in particular. I received about 7 classes of an hour for first communion. 2 and a half years later I received less than a handful of class preparation for confirmation. Then off to the seminary I went, totally confused because of all the dissent. I was very conservative or orthoodx to some degree, but so many catechists contradicted the Church’s teaching. You see, it was the Catholics themselves that are to blame. That extends to the clergy as well. I fear for their souls now. How could anyone intentionally lead so many people down heresy lane.

To date, we see the effects of such heterodox teaching. Homosexuality brought to the forefront, women pushing to be priests, leaders of the world by forsaking their vocation to the religious life or in marriage as mothers. We speak of the “single life” in a way like it’s the priesthood. We kill our children in the womb. We lead our brethren astray.

A day of reconing is at hand, my friends. Truth has been revealing itself from the beginning. However, the attempts of the wicked to redefine history is beginning to fail. The internet, thought much evil persists, has opened up a world of information that has become available to everyone with the technology to access it. That is how I found the truth. I learned the truth from my grandparents old Catholic encyclopedias, but the so called faithful misrepresented it by saying “the Church no longer teaches that” as if truth were plyable and flexible. Their truth was, and still is today, rooted in relative morality. No, my friends. We must not judge the fallen away Catholics so harshly without knowing their conscience. We need to realize there are folks like me who were and are subject to the influences of unfaithful Catholics in their lives, not to mention the anit-Catholics in their lives.

I’ve wanted to say this since I’ve been back home to the Catholic Church, welcome back to the truth, Catholics that were once unfaithful to the truth. And for those that continue their obvious dissent, “don’t let the door hit you on the _____”. You lies, poor example and influence are not welcome.

But, on a more positive note, Welcome Home! everyone. Praise God, He has lifted the dark colored glasses from our eyes. Pray that we continue to come to the fullness of truth in Him.

 

[Contarini]

The Waldensians and those other groups were heretics. Many protestants will point to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Iconoclasts and other heretics, but they actually looked into what these groups believed, they would find, ironically, than these protestants would find that their own beliefs are actually closer to the Catholic Church.

That’s not true of the Waldensians. Don’t confuse the Waldensians with the Albigensians. The latter were indeed heretics. The former were a lay movement who became estranged from the Church because the hierarchy wouldn’t let them preach publicly. They eventually developed some views that were unorthodox by Catholic standards, but on the whole they were less heretical (by Catholic standards) than mainstream Protestants. They became Protestants in the sixteenth century, but there was some conflict over this, because the Protestant theology regarding grace and salvation and their stress on a learned ministry were quite different from the populist, ethics-oriented teaching of the Waldenses.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I think a lot of Catholics, many more than anyone suspects, are lured to Protestant churches by the excellent music

There are many ex-Catholics in my parish/church who became Lutherans because of the music (we DO have good music generally).

Most other reasons are lack of info. and that Protestantism is not strict - you can believe whatever you want to.

Very depressing.

 

[Contarini]

There are many ex-Catholics in my parish/church who became Lutherans because of the music (we DO have good music generally).

I don’t know if you attend a contemporary or traditional church, but if the latter I thoroughly agree with you. There was an article in First Things some years ago about a convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism whose daughter asked her, “Mommy, why can’t we go back to Mr. Bach’s church?”

My wife and I are the music ministers at our (Episcopal) parish, and we tend to schedule Lutheran hymns whenever possible. And I’ve been taking organ lessons and greatly enjoying working on Buxtehude and Bach and Telemann. . . .

Edwin

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The Waldensians and those other groups were heretics. Many protestants will point to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Iconoclasts and other heretics, but they actually looked into what these groups believed, they would find, ironically, than these protestants would find that their own beliefs are actually closer to the Catholic Church.

The Waldesians are part of the Reformed movement in Italy (officially). I would disagree that Protestants would find themselves closer to Catholics. The Waldesians, in essence, were a proto-Protestant movement. They weren’t wild heretics.

 

[Contarini]

The Waldesians are part of the Reformed movement in Italy (officially). I would disagree that Protestants would find themselves closer to Catholics. The Waldesians, in essence, were a proto-Protestant movement. They weren’t wild heretics.

Actually it appears to me to be the other way round. As I said in my earlier post, when the Waldensians identified with the Reformed movement, it required them to make some shifts in their theology and practice, and on the whole those shifts took them further away from Catholicism.

They weren’t really proto-Protestant, because they were more orthodox (from a Catholic perspective) than Protestants, especially with regards to soteriology.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8185504]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.

Hi Jim,
Sorry for the delay. I’ve been away for a few days.
Your response here doesn’t match the statement I made. No where do I make any of these claims, nor have I accused any pope of being a liar. What I do say, and with great respect, is that the primacy now claimed by Rome is not the primacy acknowledged in the early Church.

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

Regardless. These dates do not exclude the fact that parts of the canon had been disputes all the way until, and even during Trent.

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.

Cardinal Cajetan, a contemporary of Luther, also excludes them by his words, just prior to Trent. One can hold Luther accountable for his dispute of the canon, only if one is also willing to hold other Catholics of his era and before in the same way, ISTM. Otherwise, it becomes a double standard.

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)

He also calls it a fine book, even though rejected by the ancients, because it sets no doctrine of men. As for its authorship, this was the common complaint against James.

Peace be wth you,

And also with you, my friend.
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

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.

I agree 100%. This may sound cruel and rude,but I view Protestanism like a big lunch buffet. Grab and eat was is pleasing to one’s appetite and eyes.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t know if you attend a contemporary or traditional church, but if the latter I thoroughly agree with you. There was an article in First Things some years ago about a convert from Lutheranism to Catholicism whose daughter asked her, “Mommy, why can’t we go back to Mr. Bach’s church?”

My wife and I are the music ministers at our (Episcopal) parish, and we tend to schedule Lutheran hymns whenever possible. And I’ve been taking organ lessons and greatly enjoying working on Buxtehude and Bach and Telemann. . . .

Edwin

My church has both kinds of music. Personally, I think the contemporary is BAD, but many people seem to like it. We have good traditional music too. I always thought that the churches that are more “high church”, i.e Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, etc, had better music.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian

I assume you are a Coptic Catholic. I have a doctor who is a Copt of the largest group of Christians in Egypt. Orthodox, though not quite like the Greeks and Russians. As I recall, they have their own Pope. They also have been accused of monophysitism, which they deny. Etc. Anyway, that group is affiliated with the World Council of Churches. I have great respect for them, and, indeed, for many other Christians - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. There are some - like Mormons - who are in a different category altogether, with different prophets, a different scripture, etc. Mormons are generally fine, moral people, but they fo have a very different religion.

Probably I simply am less literal than both traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestants. There is much in the Bible that inspires me, of course, but some that troubles me. Do I really believe that God repented that he made man, decided to drown everybody but Noah and his family, had Noah build an ark to hold two of all animals (more of some), then keep them fed on that ark for 150 days, promising never to drown everybody again. No, I don't believe it. My God would never drown - for example - all those innocent children, plus babies in the womb.

And don't expect me to believe that God ordered Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and insisted that Saul murder every remaining Amalekite. I certainly don't like that chant: "Saul has killed his thousands  but David his ten thousands!" Or, that outrageous story from II King 2 - how two she-bears tore apart 42 children after Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord. What had they done? Mocked his bald head. Give me a break!

 We could go on and on. Even in the New Testament, when I go to mass women read the lessons and don't wear coverings on their head. As I recall Paul said that women should keep silent in such and have their heads covered. What about slaves should obey their masters - which could be (and was) interpreted as an endorsement of slavery. It appears that believers pick and choose verses they like. (Lest I be misunderstood), I think women should be ordained.)

 I'm for the spirit of unity (not union) among Christians (and everyone, for that matter). However, the idea that we all should think in lock-step fashion isn't for me. We have this magnificant, miraculous, mammoth and mysterious world and I can't believe that we're not permitted by God to feast on it with our brains - wondering, questioning, pondering, yes, doubting. So much of theology came from a time when telescopes were poor and microscopes were non-existent. So the Church Fathers believed the sun revolved around the earth, had absolutely no concept of maybe a million solar systems out in space, imagined a hell in the middle of the earth, thought disease was caused by sin and/or Satan, etc. Why are they given such prominence by some when they were so mistaken in their worldview?

 I have become attracted to mainline Protestantism because it seems so open-minded when it comes to different perspectives. It preaches a deep faith in God but doesn't insist that we all think alike. We can believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. We can see the Pope as the Bishop of Rome or not? We can have various opinions when it comes to a variety of doctrines. That appeals to me. I know this can offend others, but so be it. Actually millions of Catholics differ from their church already. I subscribe to several Catholic periodicals and read a poll in one of them that found that 53% of American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiaton. Etc.

 But my main point remains: the gospel focuses on love and not on doctrines. You can find verses to support all kinds of opinions on all sorts of subjects. But the theme of love is the message Christ left with us. 

 God bless people of all creeds, colors, cultures and countries. May religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.

Abraham knew nothing of modern science as we know it, knew nothing of anything you speak of and yet he is considered the Father of all Nations at 100 years old. The gospel you speak of is different in Catholic and Protestant thought, not much different but different. It is a doctrine. It divides. Paul makes that point in Romans. What others believe is less important than what I believe and you as well.

 

[CopticChristian]

I find your treatment of the Christian/Jewish parallel rather odd, because your claims about the beginnings of Protestantism are dubious and many Protestants would claim that there is indeed “the testimony of many to the Gospel” showing that medieval Catholicism had messed up God’s intentions every bit as badly as the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day, and that Protestantism was the true revival of the Gospel.

I would say rather that the problem with the parallel is that Protestantism was not inaugurated by the incarnation of the Son of God, who had greater authority than the teachers of the law.

A further caveat to your premise: Christianity is “historically Catholic” in the sense that there was something in existence by the second century which called itself “the Catholic Church” and there’s unbroken continuity between that body and the bodies that presently call themselves “the Catholic Church” and “the Orthodox Church.” But apart from the fact that there are at least two bodies with approximately equal continuity (arguably there are four, if you count the non-Chalcedonian Eastern churches as well), the kind of continuity that Catholics can claim simply doesn’t seem that impressive to many Protestants. Many Protestants see the institutional side of Christianity as relatively unimportant, and are more interested either in continuity of doctrine or in practical effectiveness and spiritual vitality, or some combination of both.

I’m not saying that the Catholic Church shows up particularly badly on these grounds, but its claims are not self-evident from history on Protestant premises. People who claim that history proves Catholicism are committing the fallacy of assuming Catholic premises before they appeal to history.

I myself find the Catholic case over against Protestantism compelling, but it’s not purely on historical grounds. There are many church historians with equal or far superior credentials to mine who do not find the Catholic case compelling at all. (Newman’s oft-repeated dictum is factually wrong–it applied only to a very particular form of Protestant ideology, dominant in his day and still held by many people today, but not identical with Protestantism as a whole).

Edwin

So,
we wait for 1600 years that through the Church, the mysery hidden for all ages, that intrinsic justification was wrong and we are now to believe extrinsic justification, The Bible/Tradition and the Church is the standard for teaching and now The Bible alone is the standard, There was Church authority and now there is none. Sounds like another gospel.

 

[Contarini]

So,
we wait for 1600 years that through the Church, the mysery hidden for all ages, that intrinsic justification was wrong and we are now to believe extrinsic justification, The Bible/Tradition and the Church is the standard for teaching and now The Bible alone is the standard, There was Church authority and now there is none. Sounds like another gospel.

I’m not sure how you get this from what I said.

On justification in particular Catholics have a very strong case.

Tradition/church authority are more complex, though there too I see a break with previous tradition in Protestantism.

However, you are missing the point–all I was saying is that institution continuity doesn’t matter that much to many Protestants. Protestants deal with the issue of doctrinal continuity in various ways. I myself do not find any of them very convincing, but again, much of that’s because of my presuppositions.

All I’m saying is that a simple historical argument proves nothing. To take one common contemporary evangelical approach: many would hold to doctrinal specifics fairly loosely and thus would say that sure, many things may have been seen less “clearly” by medieval or even patristic Christians, but that doesn’t mean that the Church vanished for centuries. It simply means that God has shown certain things more clearly to modern Protestants–and many of them these days would gladly admit that there are other things that Catholics may see more clearly and Protestants can learn from them. That’s probably the most common approach among the evangelicals I interact with.

There is no purely historical refutation of this.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s not true of the Waldensians. Don’t confuse the Waldensians with the Albigensians. The latter were indeed heretics. The former were a lay movement who became estranged from the Church because the hierarchy wouldn’t let them preach publicly. They eventually developed some views that were unorthodox by Catholic standards, but on the whole they were less heretical (by Catholic standards) than mainstream Protestants. They became Protestants in the sixteenth century, but there was some conflict over this, because the Protestant theology regarding grace and salvation and their stress on a learned ministry were quite different from the populist, ethics-oriented teaching of the Waldenses.

You are joking right. A little less heretical? Waldensians were embraced by Protestant thought and in that context had similar thoughts.

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually it appears to me to be the other way round. As I said in my earlier post, when the Waldensians identified with the Reformed movement, it required them to make some shifts in their theology and practice, and on the whole those shifts took them further away from Catholicism.

They weren’t really proto-Protestant, because they were more orthodox (from a Catholic perspective) than Protestants, especially with regards to soteriology.

Edwin

Knox, Zwingli, Luther, Calvin were all Catholic. Their new religion emanating out of white europe is Protestant. As it regards other groups they too were Catholic. Is there any schism/heresy prior to 1600 that was Christian in form that did not come from the Catholic Church?

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure how you get this from what I said.

On justification in particular Catholics have a very strong case.

Tradition/church authority are more complex, though there too I see a break with previous tradition in Protestantism.

However, you are missing the point–all I was saying is that institution continuity doesn’t matter that much to many Protestants. Protestants deal with the issue of doctrinal continuity in various ways. I myself do not find any of them very convincing, but again, much of that’s because of my presuppositions.

All I’m saying is that a simple historical argument proves nothing. To take one common contemporary evangelical approach: many would hold to doctrinal specifics fairly loosely and thus would say that sure, many things may have been seen less “clearly” by medieval or even patristic Christians, but that doesn’t mean that the Church vanished for centuries. It simply means that God has shown certain things more clearly to modern Protestants–and many of them these days would gladly admit that there are other things that Catholics may see more clearly and Protestants can learn from them. That’s probably the most common approach among the evangelicals I interact with.

There is no purely historical refutation of this.

Edwin

The language of “case” reminds me of the Protestant notion that we are justified as if by act of decree in a Roman Courtroom.

The Old testament is a testament. The people of God, led by people, Abraham, Moses, David as made evident in reading and summarized by Paul in the book of Romans. He says “did God abandon his People?” The people he led. Romans 7, the Old Covenant is dead and the New Covenant is the spouse.

All of this dialogue about not accepting history is to suggest that God kept his Old Covenant and his people together united in one belief as a people, established his New Covenant and for 1600 years taught that Covenant and now we have a new religion, emanating out of white europe, with 4 different beliefs that were never taught, ie extrinsic justification, the bible alone, faith alone and no church authority, and I am left to ask, has God abandoned His people?

or look at it another way. The body of Christ is the Church and Christ is the head. The Church is routinely compared to marriage. Is there any story, any parable, any teaching in the Old Covenant or New Covenant that supports the bride/body splitting off declaring whatever it wants to without authority and then claiming that there is no authority but a book? Based on this premise then establishing some new teaching?