Converting from Catholic to Protestant...

[racing59]

I read through most this thread and decided to reply. I don’t know if you would say I have Converted from Catholic to Protestant, but my leaving RCC is very complex. I can not give you just one reason for leaving.I can give you one reason why I haven’t come back is most (not all) RCC members have been brutal to my family for leaving.This has always bothered me because they assume they know why I left in the first place.They OP and some others use words like “I would never leave”. Peter in Scripture said he would never abandon Jesus and what did he do? Denied him three times.Part of the reason I left (not all) was the more I studied RCC ,history of the Church,and history in general, the more questions I had.There is a lot more than just this. I have never hated RCC,I do not bash it to my Protestant friends, there are things about it I do not understand.It seems to me, question something, some people take it as a direct assault on their faith.I’m being vague in this post not to offend some that are sensitive to the very presence of a so called ex-Catholic.

Peace

 

[Bengoshi]

The Council of Trent defined that the power to forgive sins given in John 20: 23 is the same power exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.See mt16,19 and18,18. If you hold them bound,they are held bound: the reference of they,them, not wholly clear in the Greek, is more probably to sins than to men.

James5: 15,16. The verses you quoted, The Council of Trent declared the Anointing of the Sick, to be a sacrament “instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle”. James 5:16 declare…sins as a sign of repentance to one another: probably in connection with liturgical prayer to make public confession more efficacious,as witness the Didache.Pray for one another:cf Col3,4 Thes 5,25; Heb 13, 18. Peace, Carlan

The “Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick” was nowhere in the Bible instituted by Christ. It was directed by James as a manner of healing and strengthening. As confession is for the healing of the spirit, anointing with oil is for the healing of the body. Of course, both is done together with prayer.

There are only two biblical sacraments or ordinances, and those are baptism and the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion. As to the Council of Trent, it was a mere reaction to the Protestant Reformation and was meant to counter the same. It’s declarations are logically self-serving in order to promote the authority of the Roman heirarchy.

 

[Carlan]

The “Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick” was nowhere in the Bible instituted by Christ. It was directed by James as a manner of healing and strengthening. As confession is for the healing of the spirit, anointing with oil is for the healing of the body. Of course, both is done together with prayer.

There are only two biblical sacraments or ordinances, and those are baptism and the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper/Communion. As to the Council of Trent, it was a mere reaction to the Protestant Reformation and was meant to counter the same. It’s declarations are logically self-serving in order to promote the authority of the Roman heirarchy.

Thank you Ben, for you opnion,Peace, Carlan

 

[Emerite]

In response to Racing 59:
Sorry that RCC members have been “brutal” to your family for leaving – evidently they weren’t acting in a Christian manner. And I sincerely hope that you arrived at your own decision, with a true Christian heart and independent of other’s influence, and that you have peace, joy and contentment in your new-found status. (I think one is considered to be a lax or non-practicing Catholic, leaving the definition “ex-Catholic” for those who are excommunicated from the Church.”) Some years ago, Time magazine published the history of Christianity , and confirmed that the Catholic Church is the original church created by Jesus Christ. Some Catholic Church members made some mistakes throughout history, but I wouldn’t abandon the Church because of this anymore than I’d abandon my family if a parent or sibling made a bad mistake. Much later, many thousands of Christian religions were formed by men creating new religions to suit their purposes. If you need answers, I’d suggest “Catholicscomehome.org.” The reason I have a problem with my dear relatives who have left the Church is I so truly believe in my Catholic Faith, founded by Jesus Christ when he made St. Peter the first Pope, and love these relatives so much. Further, I have difficulty thinking that their souls and mine might be separated for eternity, but realize I can only be responsible for my own salvation. I love and respect my friends who were reared in other faiths, especially those mentioned at No. 847 in the Catechism, and truly pray that all Christian communities will one day be united. May God bless you, Racing 59.

 

[climer97007]

It seems to me, question something, some people take it as a direct assault on their faith. I’m being vague in this post not to offend some that are sensitive to the very presence of a so called ex-Catholic. Peace

If you would prefer a safe place to ask questions about the Catholic faith, follow the link in my signature. In the Yahoo Catholic-RCIA group, arguments and name calling are not allowed. Just question and answer, question and answer. It is a question and answer Group for those really wanting answers, although not a place for non-Catholics to try to convert those present to the group.

In His Service,

Gene

 

[josie_L]

Goodness, Josie. How on earth does this respond to my post above. That sinful human beings, be they Protestant or Catholic, fail to live by His commands is a given. That I why you and I both believe in Confession.

Luther, an inveterate enemy of the Church? Sounds like Dr. Wood’s predjudice is showing.

Jon, Luther had so many bad things to say about the Church that to name them would violate forum rules. I think it’s safe to say that having died without ever reconciling with the Church he never retracted what he had previously said (moreover I believe he wrote a book condemning the Church right before he died).

And its all Luther’s fault. Josie, you’re much more learned and reasonable than that.

Jon

Jon, he opened pandora’s box when he introduced the concept of sola scriptura, i.e., subjectivism was allowed to slowly chip away at the truth, so why wouldn’t others do likewise?

 

[mmmcounts]

Oh,so are you saying that what Jesus did and gave to us at the Last Supper ,was not to be taken as truth only as a symbol of your religious faith.

Hm, started as a question but didn’t really end that way. Let’s put it this way. I think Jesus’ words at the Last Supper have to be understood in context, and that context was a Seder. I put a great deal of emphasis on what the bread and wine meant for the previous 1500 years of Jewish tradition, and this is something that doesn’t factor into the Catholic interpretation of the passage at all. Instead, you rely almost exclusively on a 4th century philosophy that was completely unknown to Jesus’ disciples, the apostles, and the earlier ECF’s. Additionally, it’s proven to be rather useless ever since then.

Do you not have the faith to believe in everything Jesus said and did.

Another one of those question-statements…

Would you walk away as so many did that day?

I’m pretty sure Judas was the only one who got up and walked away on the night of the Last Supper.

Do you believe in the miracle at Cana, if so why not the miracle at the Last Supper?

Because there are significant differences between the two events, not least of which is the absence of a miracle at the Last Supper.

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;6331952]Jon, Luther had so many bad things to say about the Church that to name them would violate forum rules. I think it’s safe to say that having died without ever reconciling with the Church he never retracted what he had previously said (moreover I believe he wrote a book condemning the Church right before he died).

He never condemned the Church. The papacy and its corruption of the time, but not the Church. And yes, it is a difference that has a distinction.

Jon, he opened pandora’s box when he introduced the concept of sola scriptura, i.e., subjectivism was allowed to slowly chip away at the truth, so why wouldn’t others do likewise?

Your charge is so incredibly simplistic. Luther did not act in isolation. The political, social, cultural events of the time were ongoing with or without Luther. In addition, I would reject your contention that he introduced sola scriptura, or that it necessarily leads to subjectivism.

Jon

 

[ElisabethM]

Because we have no confidence in the leadership and moral authority of Rome. My own opinion is that the Lutheran Church offers the very bet of what the Catholic Church provides and filters out the unecessary

I’ve been thinking about this . . . even if what the Lutheran Church retained from the Catholic were unaltered (might be an interesting exercise to name anything the Lutheran Church did not change), what would be those “unnecessary” things of the Catholic Church the Lutheran Church rejected, and does that rejection leave them better or worse off?

Every rejection I can think of from intercession of the saints to purgatory to the seven sacraments (and many, many things in between) leaves the Lutheran worse off. Once when my husband and I were talking with a Lutheran pastor in a new area we’d moved to about his church, he asked us, “What do you want from the church?” First, I told him that was a very good question and I’m glad he asked it. My answer to this question actually coincided with our beginning departure from the Lutheran church.

I told this good pastor that what I needed from the Church was help to live as a Christian and die as a Christian. As I started to learn about the REAL Roman Catholic Church, I saw the help I was looking for was there–and I have not been disappointed.

What of our Catholic Church can be deemed unnecessary? It is all a beautiful intricate tapestry with every doctrine, every practice, every tradition woven in to make the whole.

When I was first struck with the notion that the Catholic Church may not be what I had understood from my Lutheran background and what would it mean for me to become Catholic, I wondered if I could get by with leaving out Mary, purgatory and the saints–the classic Catholic issues. Well, that’s where I started–leaving those aside and looking at rest of the Church. I think it was 3 or 4 years before I could consider those topics, but, when I did, I found that they were part of that tapestry, the complete beautiful presentation of the Church. As I embraced them, I gained all that much more help for my journey toward heaven.

 

[TEPO]

Every rejection I can think of from intercession of the saints to purgatory to the seven sacraments (and many, many things in between) leaves the Lutheran worse off.

I like to think of the Saints as the “Fruits” of the Church… They are proof that we belong to Gods Church. Although I do believe that we are all called to be Saints!

 

[iamrefreshed]

12 pages and no answers.

I’ve been offered ‘communion’…I have Jesus in the Eucharist.

I’ve been offered ‘confess in your head’… I have confession to God as He dictated.

I’ve been offered modern bible translation…I have 2000 years of direct succession to the Word of Jesus.

I’ve been offered ‘salvation’…I have Salvation…Unless you think Catholics are going to hell?

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I’ve been thinking about this . . . even if what the Lutheran Church retained from the Catholic were unaltered (might be an interesting exercise to name anything the Lutheran Church did not change), what would be those “unnecessary” things of the Catholic Church the Lutheran Church rejected, and does that rejection leave them better or worse off?

Every rejection I can think of from intercession of the saints to purgatory to the seven sacraments (and many, many things in between) leaves the Lutheran worse off. Once when my husband and I were talking with a Lutheran pastor in a new area we’d moved to about his church, he asked us, “What do you want from the church?” First, I told him that was a very good question and I’m glad he asked it. My answer to this question actually coincided with our beginning departure from the Lutheran church.

I told this good pastor that what I needed from the Church was help to live as a Christian and die as a Christian. As I started to learn about the REAL Roman Catholic Church, I saw the help I was looking for was there–and I have not been disappointed.

What of our Catholic Church can be deemed unnecessary? It is all a beautiful intricate tapestry with every doctrine, every practice, every tradition woven in to make the whole.

When I was first struck with the notion that the Catholic Church may not be what I had understood from my Lutheran background and what would it mean for me to become Catholic, I wondered if I could get by with leaving out Mary, purgatory and the saints–the classic Catholic issues. Well, that’s where I started–leaving those aside and looking at rest of the Church. I think it was 3 or 4 years before I could consider those topics, but, when I did, I found that they were part of that tapestry, the complete beautiful presentation of the Church. As I embraced them, I gained all that much more help for my journey toward heaven.

I’m one who swam the river the other way, from Catholic to Lutheran…

For ME, there were just some things in Catholicism that were not just moot but just unsubstantiated and divisive. While I don’t REJECT the notion of purgatory (a teaching unique to The Catholic Church alone), I find it entirely unsubstantiated in Scripture and Tradition (outside The Catholic Church alone - just denominational tradition). The same is true for the dogma of The Infallibility of the Papacy, Transubstantiation, etc. The Catholic Church as a propensity to develop and declare dogmas - often moot, almost always divisive - and the substantiation for such is not only often missing but regarding as moot.

As for Mariology, as you know, Lutherans embrace Mary as the Mother of God as doctrine, and they don’t REJECT or deny ANY of the Catholic views. Some Lutherans (including my pastor) embrace them all - rather passionately. They are “pious beliefs” in Lutheranism - neither declared to be dogma or heresy, but certainly permitted views.

I agree: “Leaving” the RCC does mean “leaving” some things AS DOGMA. Purgatory, infallibility of the pope, Transubstantiation, a lot of Marian views. The only one that is “problematic” would be the one about the Pope (I think that became dogma in 1870), the rest you could certainly embrace. But it means leaving more, I realize: the Theology of Glory (Lutherans embrace the Theology of the Cross), the rejection of accountability, the insistence on institutionalism. But for me, those were aspects of Catholicism that I never was too comfortable with; I’ve always had a strong sense of community, humility and accountability so I just “fit” a lot better in Lutheranism.

We all seem to have our own “journey.” I rejoice that you seem to be blessed where you are, as am I.

Blessings!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[crazzeto]

Jon, Luther had so many bad things to say about the Church that to name them would violate forum rules. I think it’s safe to say that having died without ever reconciling with the Church he never retracted what he had previously said (moreover I believe he wrote a book condemning the Church right before he died).

Jon, he opened pandora’s box when he introduced the concept of sola scriptura, i.e., subjectivism was allowed to slowly chip away at the truth, so why wouldn’t others do likewise?

Something Luther would regret:

**Away from this Sodom (Wittenberg) I will wander about, and sooner beg my bread than allow my poor old last days to be martyred ana upset with the disorder of Wittenberg
**

And most specifically

If God had not dosed my eyes, and if I had foreseen these scandals, J would never have begun to teach the Gospel.

In 1538 he would write:
Who would have begun to preach, if we had known beforehand that so much unhappiness, tumult, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude, and wickedness would have been the result?"

and lastly

**I confess that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests."
**