Evangelical vs Protestant

[Beejenigma]

I was raised with no belief. I was fascinated by my grandmommy’s explanation of guardians angels around my bed and how we can know that God always watches over us and answers our prayers. This saved my sanity as I had just been attacked by my babysitter, who was a 16 yr old male. I was a five yr old girl. I fought him off but I was left abandoned in an underground fort behind his barn. I prayed and prayed and I was found.
I kept my simple knowledge I had been given by my Church of the Brethren grandmother. I had no religion in my home at all. At age 14, I became a born-again, speaking in tongues, slain by the Spirit street witnessing evangelical charismatic Christian because of a tent revival though the local Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. I became baptized and continued my belief but not my practice for many years.
I then became a Presbyterian, which was the church of my father’s people. I was an ardent theologian for many years in that belief.
I then moved due to becoming a Vietnam Era vet sailor’s wife. I attended the church that was closest to me in the slums of San Diego, which was Spanish Catholic. I didn’t understand it but I did love the service, which reminded me of my love of liturgy I had when I was a Lutheran.
A Franciscan monk came by and knocked on all the doors of our slum and checked on all of us. I really loved his love of the poor. I stood in bread lines at the door of the Spanish Catholic Church. This had a great affect on me.
I moved to Southern Iowa where the Baptist Church had a great outreach with free food on Wednesdays and a great Bible study, which I loved. They did accept me as a member without any question but they threw me out as a Satanist when I became the yoga instructor of the local community college. I had to laugh. I was glad to be gone. I then went to a Lutheran Church and fell in love with St. Francis.
I moved to Iowa City where I did attended the Unitarian Church, which is so intellectual and philosophical as you know. It seemed dry to me and very open to anything. This made me question where I stood even more.
I moved to Topeka, KS where I dated a Catholic who had a very large and loving Catholic Family. They took me in and sent my kids to the inner city, poverty stricken Sacred Heart School. My kids and I got our clothes from the Open Door (Catholic run) and got our medical care from the Catholic run free clinic.
I was highly impressed at this apostolate of so many loving people. I went into Formation at that time, being highly impressed by the good works in action of this great group, the Franciscans there in particular. I joined the Church on Holy Saturday 1993.
Since then I have continued my studies of the Early Church Fathers and the origin of the final body of works called the Bible and how it came about.
I have continued my love of Franciscans and I will be fully professed in two or three years! I have taken my own three vows personally. It has been four years now that I have lived a life of chastity, poverty and obedience.
I have gone as far back to the Original Liturgy as I can so I now attend Novus Ordo, which is only about three words different from the Traditional Latin Mass. The TLM is unchanged otherwise since the fourth century. If you want Original, you have it with the TLM!!!
Thanks for listening. Peace and all good, Beej and pack at the animal rescue here in Iowa

 

[CoachSTL]

I was raised with no belief. I was fascinated by my grandmommy’s explanation of guardians angels around my bed and how we can know that God always watches over us and answers our prayers. This saved my sanity as I had just been attacked by my babysitter, who was a 16 yr old male. I was a five yr old girl. I fought him off but I was left abandoned in an underground fort behind his barn. I prayed and prayed and I was found.
I kept my simple knowledge I had been given by my Church of the Brethren grandmother. I had no religion in my home at all. At age 14, I became a born-again, speaking in tongues, slain by the Spirit street witnessing evangelical charismatic Christian because of a tent revival though the local Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. I became baptized and continued my belief but not my practice for many years.
I then became a Presbyterian, which was the church of my father’s people. I was an ardent theologian for many years in that belief.
I then moved due to becoming a Vietnam Era vet sailor’s wife. I attended the church that was closest to me in the slums of San Diego, which was Spanish Catholic. I didn’t understand it but I did love the service, which reminded me of my love of liturgy I had when I was a Lutheran.
A Franciscan monk came by and knocked on all the doors of our slum and checked on all of us. I really loved his love of the poor. I stood in bread lines at the door of the Spanish Catholic Church. This had a great affect on me.
I moved to Southern Iowa where the Baptist Church had a great outreach with free food on Wednesdays and a great Bible study, which I loved. They did accept me as a member without any question but they threw me out as a Satanist when I became the yoga instructor of the local community college. I had to laugh. I was glad to be gone. I then went to a Lutheran Church and fell in love with St. Francis.
I moved to Iowa City where I did attended the Unitarian Church, which is so intellectual and philosophical as you know. It seemed dry to me and very open to anything. This made me question where I stood even more.
I moved to Topeka, KS where I dated a Catholic who had a very large and loving Catholic Family. They took me in and sent my kids to the inner city, poverty stricken Sacred Heart School. My kids and I got our clothes from the Open Door (Catholic run) and got our medical care from the Catholic run free clinic.
I was highly impressed at this apostolate of so many loving people. I went into Formation at that time, being highly impressed by the good works in action of this great group, the Franciscans there in particular. I joined the Church on Holy Saturday 1993.
Since then I have continued my studies of the Early Church Fathers and the origin of the final body of works called the Bible and how it came about.
I have continued my love of Franciscans and I will be fully professed in two or three years! I have taken my own three vows personally. It has been four years now that I have lived a life of chastity, poverty and obedience.
I have gone as far back to the Original Liturgy as I can so I now attend Novus Ordo, which is only about three words different from the Traditional Latin Mass. The TLM is unchanged otherwise since the fourth century. If you want Original, you have it with the TLM!!!
Thanks for listening. Peace and all good, Beej and pack at the animal rescue here in Iowa

Beejenigma,

Thanks you again. I love hearing these stories of tesimony. I have another question but I want to give you some insight about why I am asking. I have had many of my Catholic friends leave the Church. They have all tried to give me their biblical reasons why the Catholic Chruch is not biblical. It is usually the “Mary thing” or the “Salvation thing” (no works).

I have one friend who is pretty special. She left the Church for Evangelical about twenty three years ago. She has bounced around to several different “mega type” churches since then. We have had several intense conversations about Scripture and Catholic for over two and a half years. She always gets frustrated with me, because I can always “one up” her biblically on her reasons why she thinks the Church is not biblical.

She wants to be in a relationship with me, but I will not until she gets an annulment. She has known this for a long time now. (She was a “cradle Catholic” and married in the Church). We have tried to discuss it amicably, but she always ends up getting frustrated and says I am judgung her, and that she know in her heart that God loves her and has justified her divorce.

Here is my question.

What is it about the Church that scares people? How does a Catholic talk to a person who has left the Church?

 

[ahellesen]

Narrow path, thanks for responding to my post, I love your moniker! I think of myself as a Christian first and foremost with Jesus the head of my church. Just as I am to be submissive to my husband (who I don’t always agree with but whom God gave me as head of my family) I am submissive to the church of Jesus Christ. I am RC for many reasons beyond the fact that I believe Jesus did leave an authoritative church which not only protects us from error but also unifies us.

I am sure it pains our Lord to see the heated disagreements and divisions between us Christians. I would hope only to bridge our differences with loving, respectful dialogue. As far as doctrinal differences I don’t see any that are secondary. The entire word of God is precious and vitally important. All truths support each other and never contradict. Truth is never changing by our understanding or development. That is why there are no “believe what you want doctrines”. To know and serve God as He desires I must know the truth.

I know we are all at different places in a spiritual path to maturity and that we all have unique plans from God. I am acutely aware of how ignorant I am. I pray and study to know God and His plan for me better. Boy, I am a slow learner. However, no matter where I am at in my spiritual development the RC church has what I need. I do need to submit my ego and will sometimes, but when I look at all that the catechism teaches, nothing contradicts and it is the best guide to understanding what the Bible teaches, True enough that Catholics pick and choice but that does not make it what our Lord would have us do.

Ultimately, I want only to do what God wants regardless of what any man or woman (or myself) any where says or thinks at a particle time in their life. I do think God gave us a wonderful gift of the church though, and it was His plan to guide us through it. Again thanks for the response you gave me lots to think about. You’ll be in prayers today and may Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior abundantly bless you

 

[mchale]

For me, I simply wanted to seek the truth out and see where it lead me. Therefore, I was open to Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. When, I first began my investigation of the biblical issues, I must admit that I had a preconceived notion that the RCC was the oldest church in existence because of Christ’s establishment of it through Peter. I thought that this was a given - something that all Catholics would just “have” on those in Protestant and Orthodox faiths (I believe Orthodox doesn’t ackowledge Peter’s primacy) .

Actually, the Orthodox do acknowledge Peter’s Primacy, and also recognize that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) properly has primacy over all the bishops. They disagree over what that primacy means. Catholics believes that such primacy includes authority, the Orthodox hold that the primacy is mostly honorary. Naturally, since the Orthodox holds the Catholic Church to be in schism with the Orthodox Church they don’t grant the current Pope that primacy.

Both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church believe that they are the original Church founded by Jesus at the Last Supper. Since neither Church saw itself as a reform, but rather that they maintained the true faith, one can’t really speak of one being older than the other.

Unbeknowst to me, (and upon further investigation), I was shocked to discover that not only is the establishment of the RCC through Peter merely debatable - there is an abundance of biblical data to demonstrate just otherwise and highly doubt it altogether! I have heard Karl Kealting, Scot Hahn, and Tim Staples talk about this, and quite frankly, they are quite unconvincing to me - which was a big part in me becoming Protestant. From the petra/petros debate in original Greek to the true ecumenical council in the book of Acts where certainly Peter would have been presiding (had Christ felt the need to actually establish a papacy) but instead we find James in charge. Later on, Paul even rebukes Peter on a matter of faith and morals (which supposedly the pope is deemed “infallible”)

It always amazes me what some people find as stumbling blocks. The “Petros/petras” issue is the one I find most amusing. If this was as important as most Protestants think, then why has this argument not been made by the Greek Orthodox Church?

As for the council of Jerusalem, why is it that since James is recorded last, that it therefore means he was in charge? More importantly, considering how important the Jerusalem Church is, why is it that James does not have a more prominent role in the Gospels? Peter is mentioned more in the Gospels than any other apostle (if I remember correctly, I once did a count and Peter was mentioned more often than both James put together!).

In fact, the very notion of fallible human beings determining that there is supposedly and infallible magesterium is by its very nature subject to err.

Much more more could be said, but I need to have some dinner…

I would be careful, because it was those same fallible humans who assembled who were the physical authors of the Bible and who chose which works to include in the Bible. If you accept that they were too fallible to organize the Church, then you must also accept that they were too fallible to assemble the Bible. If on the other hand, you trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Church in writing and assembling the Bible, then why should the Holy Spirit not have guided the Church when it came to organizing the Church (Since the basic organization of the Church was established before the Canon of the New Testament was established).

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

I also wanted to address the “40,000” denominations argument that just about all Catholics accuse Protestants of. This is simply an apples to oranges comparison because the Roman Catholic RULE OF FAITH is being compared to the Protestant’s VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS of the Protestant RULE OF FAITH. The Catechism is the standard belief that all in the RCC must adhere to in order be considered Catholic. Yet, a conservative Catholic and and moderate Catholic can (and do) read the very same Catechism and invariably arrive at a completely different understandings of what the rule of faith actually teaches. This happens continuously!

It is possible that there are differences in interpretation on some issues, but on other issues (the essential beliefs) there is no room for interpretation. To deny those essential beliefs is to deny the faith. Also, we ultimately have the teaching authority of the Church to turn to in order to determine which interpretation of a given teaching is correct.

This tactic also is also related to sola Scriptura. When a Protestant evangelical says that the Bible is our RULE OF FAITH, Catholics (especially Scott Hahn who doesn’t just say "protestant’ whithout using the disclaimer “THE ANARCHY OF PROTESTANTISM” first) are quick to point out that the Bible must be insufficient because there are so many interpretations of it. Yet, there are just as many interpretations of the RCC’s Rule of Faith as there are of the Bible.

Again, there might be, but we actually have an authority to turn to to test our interpretation against. Protestants have no such authority to turn to in order to test their personal interpretation of scripture.

It is true that Evangelicals (like myself) consider the Bible uniquely inspired by God as His living Word. And it follows that as with any document, it must be interpreted. This would explain that God does not teach the 40,000 denominations, rather He teaches His PEOPLE - and common sense dictates that all will not learn at the same pace or even as much as others. Hence, all the denominations. This is not chaos when we are all united in the essential teachings of the Bible as we are. The disagreement lies with non-essential areas. And, that is fine with me, especially when I first realized that God did not come to save any particular DENOMINATIONS (including the RCC), rather He came to save His PEOPLE, regardless of what denomination they are in.

Umm, how do you determine what is an essential and what is not an essential? Is infant versus adult baptism a non-essential? What about the concept of the True Presence in the Eucharist? Whether divorce and remarriage is compatible with living a Christian life? How about abortion?

I simply don’t buy the notion that Christians, or even Protestants are united in the essentials unless you water the essentials down so much as to define Christianity as being anyone who can say the Apostles Creed.

To my mind, if the Bible was meant to be the soul source of our knowledge of Christ and his teaching, it should be very clear on lots of issues that do divide Christians today (At the very least, one would think it would clearly address the form of Baptism).

Not to mention, the word “denomination” needs to be defined before it is carelessly thrown out there. I have always wondered where in the world that the 40,000 figure came from because it sure does not seem like there are that many. And, I have come to find out that this number is based on JURISDICITON rather than on actual DIFFERING BELIEFS AND PRACTICES. Therefore, my study has shown that there are 21 differing Protestant denominations and 16 different Roman Catholic denominations worldwide.

Clearly you don’t understand Catholicism if you claim there are different denominations. There are different rites of Catholicism, but they are all unified under the same set of beliefs and any Catholic can validly attend services held by any other rite. Therefore, if I want this weekend, I could attend a Byzantine or Maronite rite mass as opposed to the Latin rite that I was born into.

Further, I think a close look at Protestantism will find more than 21 different denominations – maybe not tens of thousands, but certainly more than 21. Certainly, thought they share a common origin, its hard to see how the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the Missouri Synod can be viewed as being the same denomination when the latter does not allow the former to share communion with them?

So, I must conclude that “40,000 denomination” argument is nothing more than a poorly thought out line of reasoning that is just as devastating to the Roman Catholic position as the Roman Catholic imagines it to be against Protestantism/Evengelicalism.

I agree that sometimes too much is made of the number of Protestant Denominations, however, the fact that there are real and significant differences in the beliefs of Protestants to me suggests that there is something lacking in their approach to their faith. They should be able to agree on essentials (Besidest he 5 solas) more readily than they do.

–
Bill

 

[Beejenigma]

Beejenigma,

Thanks you again. I love hearing these stories of tesimony. I have another question but I want to give you some insight about why I am asking. I have had many of my Catholic friends leave the Church. They have all tried to give me their biblical reasons why the Catholic Chruch is not biblical. It is usually the “Mary thing” or the “Salvation thing” (no works).

I have one friend who is pretty special. She left the Church for Evangelical about twenty three years ago. She has bounced around to several different “mega type” churches since then. We have had several intense conversations about Scripture and Catholic for over two and a half years. She always gets frustrated with me, because I can always “one up” her biblically on her reasons why she thinks the Church is not biblical.

She wants to be in a relationship with me, but I will not until she gets an annulment. She has known this for a long time now. (She was a “cradle Catholic” and married in the Church). We have tried to discuss it amicably, but she always ends up getting frustrated and says I am judgung her, and that she know in her heart that God loves her and has justified her divorce.

Here is my question.

What is it about the Church that scares people? How does a Catholic talk to a person who has left the Church?

Dear CoachSTL,
What scares people about the Church is what scares us members about the Church!!! It is an Absolute, and any absolute is terrifying to most people. In a day where humanism is the new Religion and in that belief everyone makes their own moral absolutes, it is very unpopular to have to believe something that is terribly inconvenient to the human person.
There are so many things it is hard to count them. A major issue with me was premarital sex. I was an active RC Convert for many years and I thought it was fine to go ahead and Receive the Eucharist as long as I was in a sexual relationship with another Catholic and we were planning on getting married and we were monogamous.
Also, there is the issue of Life. Life begins at conception and follows until Natural death.
Think about these things. Think about how hard it is for many of us who have beloved family members who are GLBTs who are practicing it. The Church welcomes those who are of an alternative sexual preference, as long as they are celibate. No prejudice here. No one is the be sexually active at all unless married and then one must be chaste, which involves more than being monogamous. It goes on and on.
Do you see why it is hard to be Catholic in this day and age with all that the media tempts people with and how it proclaims that Relativism is the only rational belief system that we can hold on to? As St. Thomas Aquinas puts forth so simply, we must combine both rational thought and faith.
How can one convince a lapsed Catholic back to the Faith? There are many ways. If a person is seriously committed to a relationship with a Roman Catholic, first of all they must take Pre-Cana, or Catholic marriage prep classes. If they do this, they will understand the many reasons to be in a Catholic marriage.
For those not preparing for marriage with a Catholic but who are lapsed, it is good to point out to them that, as this world presents itself as so changeable in its beliefs and practices, there is only One Original and unquestionable Absolute and proven Apostolic Succession Source and that is the Church which claims the Chair of Peter.
After studying world history from an objective point of view, such as the works of Josephus, it is apparent to most people that this succession went from person to person, not just staying in Rome. It was the person who was chosen by the successors of Peter who became Pope. The decision to plant the Successor of Peter in Rome cam somewhere after the Council of Nicea, I think. I can do more research on this if you would like, as I am not well versed enough to quote my sources on this one.
I did have a friend who said that the origin of the Church was in Constantinople. I suggested to this person that the Council and the presiding Pope might have been there, as they did move around all the time, but that the location of St. Peter’s was set up as the main geographical location of the Bishop of Rome.
This is the burial site of St. Peter and so it was a good place to centralize the Body of Christ, his Church.
There are many other reasons to mention if you can narrow the question down. I suspect that you may be in a relationship that you might be questioning due to the person’s difficulties with the major precepts of the Church.
If you are personally in a relationship with this person, I would only say to you that you must look down the road of this relationship, say ten years, and see if it is truly the one for you. There may be problems with this person believing in things like birth control, baptism of newborns or not, etc.
I think so many of us forget that the reason for marriage is procreation and to form the holiest of units on earth, the Family. It is not just for romance and attraction only. That dies rather quickly in humans for the most part at some point. One must see the Institution of the Sacrament of Marriage for what it is meant to be.
Good luck and let me know if you have more good questions.
Pax et bonum,
Beej and the pack at the rescue here in the Iowa City area P.S. If STL means what I think it does, I used to live there!

 

[narrow_path]

In 1 Thess. 5:21 we are told to “test all things and hold fast to that which is true.” So, if there is a infallible interpreter that Christ left us with, then who interprets what the Magesterium or the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra) says about Scripture. I am told to test what they say. And, I have done so and found many unbiblical and even cult-like symptoms of the infallible interpreter idea.

Also, when 1 Peter 3:21 comes up, all that I am hearing from Catholics is what they accuse Protestants of - you can’t isolate one verse and make a theology about it. Yet, this is precisely what the RCC has done from this single, isolated verse. Further, when I read this verse in context, it has NOTHING to do with magical powers of water, rather when Catholics quote this verse, sadly they can’t even quote the ENTIRETY of it - we just see something like this:

“baptism…now saves you”

It is funny to me on the one hand, but very sad to me on the other just how much abuse this text has received. First, the text ACTUALLY reads, “and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pedge of a good conscience toward God. It save you by the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ.” My guess is that most Catholics reading this right now had no clue that the 1 Peter passage actually says this. Rather, they are comfortable not studying the Bible and relying on the Magesterium. How sad.

Anyway, there is a double-figure in this verse - the flood symbolizes baptism, and baptism symbolizes salvation. The flood was a figure of baptism in that in both instances the water that spoke of judgment (in the flood, the death of the wicked; in baptism, the death of Christ and the believer) is the water that saves! Baptism is therfore a SYMBOL of salvation in that it depicts Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. It is like saying to the world, “Come see my funeral; I have been buried to my old life and raised to newness of life through His resurrection power!” So, in the final analysis, no ritual will save you; rather the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life guarantees your eternal inheritance.

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul the ultimate question, “What must I do to be saved?”, Paul immediately responded with “BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Paul did not mention baptism because he understood what baptism was: an outward symbol of an inward reality. I also wonder why Christ told the thief on the cross (who was not Catholic nor had he been baptized) “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Perhaps what Christ should have done (in the mind of Catholics) is told the man next to Him that he needed someone to get him down from there so he could be baptized (and saved) and then put him back up to finish his slow, agonizing death.

And, I still must insist, how do Catholics interpret this verse?:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:9)

What I see is hostility and contemp from Catholics when this verse is even mentioned. Needless to say, that should not be the mindset on anyone who is seeking Truth. It is almost like when I mention this verse, instead of Catholics exegeting it, they deflect the issue at hand and bring up other verses out of context. It is almost as if they are saying, “Oh yeah, well our Magesterium disagrees with you so I have nothing to worry about.” This is where the RCC to me gets…well…spooky.

However, I sincerely believe with all of my heart that some Roman Catholics WILL be in paradise restored in the eschaton (the New Jerusalem) despite their doctrine (not because of it). Just as some Protestants will be and some Orthodox will be as well.

I have been labeled a “Christian” by some that are gracious in this thread and a “heretic” by others in the very same thread! It seems to me that members of the RCC don’t even agree with each other as to who is Christian and who is not. But this is no surprise. It goes back to what I was saying earlier: every document is subject to man’s interpretation. Thus, I feel quite comfortable knowing what I believe and why I believe it and stand ready to be fully accountable for my beliefs. The Catholic will find himself in the very same position - accountable before God.

Also, where does the Bible say that believers in Christ MUST be members of the RCC? Did I miss that somewhere?

Finally, Protestantism is simply the result of the Reformation whose key distinctive is that the Bible is the final rule of authority in the Christians life - not Roman Catholic traditions.

Evangelicalism is the belief that a personal conversion is necessary (not just doing man-made rituals) for salvation. In other words, we are not “born of God” or “born of the Spirit” or “born again” by doing any particular ritual - rather we are regenerated by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. There is also emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone in this thread, but I must be true to my Lord and what He has revealed to us through His Word.

 

[CoachSTL]

Dear CoachSTL,
What scares people about the Church is what scares us members about the Church!!! It is an Absolute, and any absolute is terrifying to most people. In a day where humanism is the new Religion and in that belief everyone makes their own moral absolutes, it is very unpopular to have to believe something that is terribly inconvenient to the human person.
There are so many things it is hard to count them. A major issue with me was premarital sex. I was an active RC Convert for many years and I thought it was fine to go ahead and Receive the Eucharist as long as I was in a sexual relationship with another Catholic and we were planning on getting married and we were monogamous.
Also, there is the issue of Life. Life begins at conception and follows until Natural death.
Think about these things. Think about how hard it is for many of us who have beloved family members who are GLBTs who are practicing it. The Church welcomes those who are of an alternative sexual preference, as long as they are celibate. No prejudice here. No one is the be sexually active at all unless married and then one must be chaste, which involves more than being monogamous. It goes on and on.
Do you see why it is hard to be Catholic in this day and age with all that the media tempts people with and how it proclaims that Relativism is the only rational belief system that we can hold on to? As St. Thomas Aquinas puts forth so simply, we must combine both rational thought and faith.
How can one convince a lapsed Catholic back to the Faith? There are many ways. If a person is seriously committed to a relationship with a Roman Catholic, first of all they must take Pre-Cana, or Catholic marriage prep classes. If they do this, they will understand the many reasons to be in a Catholic marriage.
For those not preparing for marriage with a Catholic but who are lapsed, it is good to point out to them that, as this world presents itself as so changeable in its beliefs and practices, there is only One Original and unquestionable Absolute and proven Apostolic Succession Source and that is the Church which claims the Chair of Peter.
After studying world history from an objective point of view, such as the works of Josephus, it is apparent to most people that this succession went from person to person, not just staying in Rome. It was the person who was chosen by the successors of Peter who became Pope. The decision to plant the Successor of Peter in Rome cam somewhere after the Council of Nicea, I think. I can do more research on this if you would like, as I am not well versed enough to quote my sources on this one.
I did have a friend who said that the origin of the Church was in Constantinople. I suggested to this person that the Council and the presiding Pope might have been there, as they did move around all the time, but that the location of St. Peter’s was set up as the main geographical location of the Bishop of Rome.
This is the burial site of St. Peter and so it was a good place to centralize the Body of Christ, his Church.
There are many other reasons to mention if you can narrow the question down. I suspect that you may be in a relationship that you might be questioning due to the person’s difficulties with the major precepts of the Church.
If you are personally in a relationship with this person, I would only say to you that you must look down the road of this relationship, say ten years, and see if it is truly the one for you. There may be problems with this person believing in things like birth control, baptism of newborns or not, etc.
I think so many of us forget that the reason for marriage is procreation and to form the holiest of units on earth, the Family. It is not just for romance and attraction only. That dies rather quickly in humans for the most part at some point. One must see the Institution of the Sacrament of Marriage for what it is meant to be.
Good luck and let me know if you have more good questions.
Pax et bonum,
Beej and the pack at the rescue here in the Iowa City area P.S. If STL means what I think it does, I used to live there!

Beej,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It is insightful. But I may have asked you the wrong way what I am trying to understand. Let me try it this way.

When you were not Catholic, what did you see or hear that got you thinking in a different direction about Catholic?

 

[Holly3278]

No, I am definitely not a Protestant.

 

[Beejenigma]

Beej,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It is insightful. But I may have asked you the wrong way what I am trying to understand. Let me try it this way.

When you were not Catholic, what did you see or hear that got you thinking in a different direction about Catholic?

 Simply put, what I saw and/or heard that got me thinking in a different direction about Catholic? Well, catholic means universal, literally. It does not really represent a certain branch of belief, at least originally. It is meant still to mean universal. 
 I used to say the Nicene Creed and I always wondered about why we said catholic and apostolic. I also wondered why we didn't literally believe that all the things Christ said about "this is my body" and "this is my blood". He didn't say, "this is a symbol". Not just choosing one passage here but all the references, unlike sola scriptura. I don't mean every word is literal in every passage but when he repeats it to the point where so many walk away and he even asks the Apostles if they are going to leave also because he says this, it means his body and his blood.
 I also have always wondered what happened to all the early beliefs in western history about angels and saints was just .....gone. Just disappeared from history as suddenly as Luther appeared. I would often ask about it but people would just say that it was old superstition. I always wanted it to still be true. 
 As we know, the protestant partial bible does not contain the wonderful books on these subjects that Catholics have in the fullness of the original bible that was butchered by Luther and King James.I was so happy to find that these beautiful spirits are real and still all around us! What a wealth of wonderful things we have to aid us in our belief through the senses and in spirit while we are here on earth when we embrace these things! 
 When I walk into an Anabaptist Church like the one my mother was raised in, I see such stark nakedness. I see the pulpit as the central focus with either no cross or just a cross. No body of Christ to remind us of His Passion. No musical instruments. No beautiful glass artwork in the windows. No colors other than white and wood. The focus is on whatever the present pastor feels is important for that week or whatever.
 By the way, I was stunned to find that every mass (which is a full church service seven days a week, by the way...not just on Sundays, just in case the protestants didn't realize that) has a reading from the Old Testament, The Psalms, The New Testament and The Gospel!  And protestants say we don't read the Bible! Ha! 
 I fell in love with not only daily mass, but the Divine Office or the Liturgy of the Hours, which all religious must recite daily on top of going to mass. More biblical stuff. To the protestants who read here, please try doing this Office even for seven days. [www.universalis.com](www.universalis.com). Get back to me on whether you think we read the bible or not after you have done this.
 I stayed at a convent as a volunteer for a friend who was getting her master's in psych when I was 14. I watched the elderly 90 lb reverend mother go into her garden. Wild birds flew to land on her and squirrels came up to be hand fed. It stunned me! 
 When I was an confused 18 yr old, I accompanied a fellow musician to a gig at Georgetown in DC at the convent. I met with a Sister Katharine who listened to my sadness and depression over life in general. 
 I told her I just wanted to come inside the walls or just give up. She convinced me that God has a plan for me and that plan may be that I be a Light to shine in the Darkness for Him. This has always stayed with me.
 I haven't mentioned that I had double pneumonia when I was 15 and I was at Walter Reed Medical Center in DC in critical for three weeks and then another month after that. 
 I had a death experience and I said that if I came back I could tell even one person that I have been There and seen It and even if only one person could come to believe because of my story, it would be worth it. 
 And here I am at age 52 with scarred lungs and more and more frequent infections, but I am still knowing Why I am here every single day, no matter what my pain or illness level! I am humbled daily. 
 Pax nobiscum (correct me if that is not the proper form - I am still learning!), Beej

 

[usemelord]

narrow_path you have articulated your position eloquently. I felt your passion in stating your arguments such that it was almost as if I had written the thread myself! I was raised in a Christian home and always thought of myself as Protestant, a term I associated with being non-Catholic, NOT anti-Catholic. I went to Bible churches, Baptist churches and described myself as a sort of Billy Graham kind-of-guy. I was “born again” at about age 12 or so and truly believed that I had guaranteed my salvation for eternity, you know, “once saved, always saved.” I married a Catholic and we raised both our kids Catholic. That was 42 years ago!! I always used to get a bit irked at my wife whenever she expressed doubt that she would go to heaven when she passed. For me it was a no-brainer. My “ticket” to heaven was already in my back pocket just waiting to be cashed in, right? Well, not quite. Five years ago I began exploring the Catholic faith. I never understood why Catholic do what they do, and no one ever bothered to explain Mass to me; it seemed so robotic. At any rate, after diligent, objective study I was finally able to connect the dots so to speak and come to utterly fall head-over-heels in love with the Catholic faith for a variety of reasons, most especially (for me) the undeniable Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Believe me when I tell you that I would readily have bet a large amount of money that I would never become Catholic prior to embarking on my personal journey. Here I am four years later (I entered the church at Easter Vigil, 2005) and two months from my 65 birthday, and the fire still burns. And, no, Catholics do not have any sort of exclusivity to heaven. I like to think of the differences in Protestant worship and Catholic worship as variations in style. Of course, it’s really not quite that simple, primarily because of Communion being largely symbolic in the majority of Protestant churches and opposed to Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist at Mass. Getting back for a moment to the concept of “once saved, always saved,” I had to re-evaluate my thoughts on that and concluded one can just as easily lose one’s salvation; i.e. committing heinous crimes, denouncing God, living a life alienated from God, and so forth. Although I always argued that we are saved by grace, not works, at the same time I also had to acknowledge the inescapable truth that faith without works is dead, and that we must “work on our salvation with fear and trembling” which, to me, means to be as Christ-like as possible every day, doing His will and not mine. Keep on that “narrow path” until you find the ultimate truth.

 

[bigbaldone]

Greetings.

I am new to this forum, but not a stranger to online forums in general.

I was born and raised Catholic until the age of 10. My parents switched to Protestant and thus began my journey.

To be brief, I attended bible college, received a degree in Theology and spent many years as a full time Pastor. I can say that disunity among Protestant denominations is outstanding!

I have returned to the Catholic church after much research, study and prayer. What is amazing is that there is unity in the RCC. Now, don’t get me wrong, there is disagreement among the “expression” of the faith; e.g., traditional mass vs. modern, but the “substance” is exactly the same. I also know that some splinter groups exist, but the overall unity of the substance of the faith is what drives me.

The development of the church is very unique, and most Protestants learn their church history through…other Protestants, most who have never been Catholic.

Narrow_path brought up Peter and questions his role as the first Pope; well, lets say the first leader of the church (Note: unbroken succession is well documented) The first century was a time of development, and at the end of that century, the structure and leadership was pretty well set. This structure is not readily agreed upon within modern day Protestantism, because they say it is not in the bible, and they look at the structure within the time frame of Peter, not the process of development.

One last thought. Martin Luther was a rebel. A complete study of his life including the fact that he had a strong hatred for the Jews, plus the fact that his translation of the scriptures had added words* to emphasize his theological dogma, is disquieting.

• This is well documented, and some research will bring to light that this is neither a rumor nor a biased personal opinion.

 

[CoachSTL]

Greetings.

I am new to this forum, but not a stranger to online forums in general.

I was born and raised Catholic until the age of 10. My parents switched to Protestant and thus began my journey.

To be brief, I attended bible college, received a degree in Theology and spent many years as a full time Pastor. I can say that disunity among Protestant denominations is outstanding!

I have returned to the Catholic church after much research, study and prayer. What is amazing is that there is unity in the RCC. Now, don’t get me wrong, there is disagreement among the “expression” of the faith; e.g., traditional mass vs. modern, but the “substance” is exactly the same. I also know that some splinter groups exist, but the overall unity of the substance of the faith is what drives me.

The development of the church is very unique, and most Protestants learn their church history through…other Protestants, most who have never been Catholic.

Narrow_path brought up Peter and questions his role as the first Pope; well, lets say the first leader of the church (Note: unbroken succession is well documented) The first century was a time of development, and at the end of that century, the structure and leadership was pretty well set. This structure is not readily agreed upon within modern day Protestantism, because they say it is not in the bible, and they look at the structure within the time frame of Peter, not the process of development.

One last thought. Martin Luther was a rebel. A complete study of his life including the fact that he had a strong hatred for the Jews, plus the fact that his translation of the scriptures had added words* to emphasize his theological dogma, is disquieting.

• This is well documented, and some research will bring to light that this is neither a rumor nor a biased personal opinion.

bigbaldone,

Thank you for your testimony and welcome home! So, help me here. What does a Catholic say and how does a Catholic talk to a former Catholic, now Evangelical, that can spur them to think rationally about getting back on track with her original Catholic roots.

 

[Nephilim145]

I was a protestant street witnessing Jesus Freak in the early 70’s. I was charismatic and evangelical. To evangelize is to spread the Word. Charismatic means Holy Spirit oriented. I am a Convert now, since 1993. I am still an evangelical charismatic but now I express all of that within the Church. You will notice that many Catholic churches are turning charismatic. You can even look for a list of charismatic masses in your area. And to add to this, I am a Novus Ordo Latin Catholic and I am in training to become a secular Franciscan. This all works together beautifully.
As for the word “protestant” it means “one who protests”. There are currently over 32,000 sects recognized. Just to prove anyone can build their own “cafeteria style pick and choose” religion, I became a protestant minister! Hey, if you are protestant and you follow the beliefs of a human’s opinions like Calvinists, etc, why not just make your own religion? If you don’t feel comfortable with this, think about the keys of the kingdom being given to Peter and whether you agree with it or not, you are ALL members of the One Body, the Bride of Christ, the one holy catholic (universal) and apostolic (descending from the original Apostles) Church! I realized this myself after 35 yrs. It may not be perfect but it’s the Original Church. Pax et bonum, beejenigma

Ok I have a question for you. When you read the bible how did you come to the conclusion that

1. The bible + man made traditions = God’s word
2. The mass is scriptural when Jesus said on the cross it is done, therefore no bloodless sacrifice is needed.
3. that idols, “sacred images” or whatever you want to call them are ok in Gods eyes when the biblical ten commandments say tha having graven images and bowing to them is ok.
4. How did you come to the conclusion that the bible upholds that priest can actually through chanting an incantation can create the body and blood of Christ and that the monsterance is where that body resides? Where is the monsterance in the bible in the first place.
5. That the Bible upholds the confessional. The bible says confess your sins to one another not to a priest or some other man professing to be a mediator between man and God.
6. How do you figure that praying to Mary will some how help you.
7. How is catholicism is the original church? Nothing in it lines up with what Jesus said.

Please forsake this apostasy and go back to the bible where we find the true faith of Christ. Not these vein man made traditions that will only lead you into deception.

 

[bill_chatfield]

Protestants are any people who are part of a church that descended from those created during the Protestant Reformation. They reject certain Catholic doctrines so that they can’t be a member of the Catholic Church. They are in “protest” against the Catholic Church’s theology and so operate as Christians outside of the Catholic Church. Because the Eastern Orthodox churches separated long before the Protestant Reformation, they are not considered Protestant. Although some people may consider them “in protest” also.

Any non-Catholic, non-Orthodox church in the U.S. is Protestant. So-called Evangelicals are a type of Protestant. I object to the term Evangelical because it is used wrongly. But, I can tell you what people mean when they say they are Evangelical.

All people who attempt to follow Christ are evangelical because Christ told us to evangelize the world. That is the Great Commission given at the end of Matthew. The Catholic Church evangelized most of the western world before the Protestant Reformation. Catholic missionaries converted both Ireland, England and the rest of Europe. So, the Catholic Church is an evangelical church. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was one of the greatest evangelical missionaries in recent history. So, any Methodist church is evangelical, although some emphasize it more than others.

However, some Protestants specifically call themselves “Evangelicals” to differentiate themselves from other Protestants and Catholics who they feel have lost their way and no longer base their beliefs on the infallible, God-breathed, inerrant word of God in the Bible. They typically also believe only in “believer’s baptism” by immersion only (in contrast to those of use who are evil baby-sprinklers) and they emphasize evangelical missionary work more than some.

To Evangelicals, non-Evangelicals are apostate, evil, liberal heretics who no longer have the Holy Spirit in their churches. Evangelicals consider themselves to be the only remaining remnant of true Christianity. They have simply created a new label for themselves because they feel the label “Christian” is not enough to say what they want to say about themselves, that is that they are the only true followers of Christ.

The two generally recognized divisions of Protestant denominations are the so-called Evangelicals and the so-called “Mainline” churches. I have found that the Evangelical churches are typically members of the National Association of Evangelicals, while the Mainline churches are members of the National Council of Churches in Christ.

The only label we should use is Christian, which means that we are believers in and followers of Christ.

 

[mchale]

Ok I have a question for you. When you read the bible how did you come to the conclusion that

1. The bible + man made traditions = God’s word

Man made traditions are not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church and are not considered God’s word. Rather, the Tradition that protestants often confuse with man made traditions is the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles that existed before the New Testament was written. Perhaps 50-70 years passed before the last book of the New Testament was written by St. John and two centuries more would pass before the Canon was settled. Clearly the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church did not suspend teaching the Gospel until the New Testament was codified. Rather it was these very teachings that had existed prior to the New Testament that were used to test the various works claiming to be scriptural. Reject Tradition, and you reject part of the basis of Scripture.

1. The mass is scriptural when Jesus said on the cross it is done, therefore no bloodless sacrifice is needed.

The sacrifice of the Mass is a continuous participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. It is not a new sacrifice in the sense of Jesus being sacrificed over and over again. Jesus told the Apostles to recreate the last supper (“do this in remembrance of me”) and in the last supper, he was clearly offering his real body and blood.

1. that idols, “sacred images” or whatever you want to call them are ok in Gods eyes when the biblical ten commandments say that having graven images and bowing to them is ok.

If Catholics are bowing to the image, then they are sinning. It is what the image represents that we bow to (i.e., Christ).

1. How did you come to the conclusion that the bible upholds that priest can actually through chanting an incantation can create the body and blood of Christ and that the monsterance is where that body resides? Where is the monsterance in the bible in the first place.

The monsterance is merely a vessel so that we may gaze upon the Body of the Lord. As for the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist… it always amazes me that many Protestants are willing to interpret scripture literally right up to the point that it supports Catholic Doctrine. Jesus did not say that the bread represented his body and the wine represented his blood… he said they were his body and blood.

1. That the Bible upholds the confessional. The bible says confess your sins to one another not to a priest or some other man professing to be a mediator between man and God.

1. How do you figure that praying to Mary will some how help you.

We petition Mary for her prayers, just like you might ask a friend or family member to pray for you. At the wedding feast of Cana, scripture clearly shows that Jesus listens to his mother’s requests. Mary is simply the greatest of the Saints. The Book of revelation shows that the saints offer our prayers to God.

1. How is catholicism is the original church? Nothing in it lines up with what Jesus said.

Actually, lots of it lines up with what Jesus said. What doesn’t line up is your interpretation of what Jesus said.

Please forsake this apostasy and go back to the bible where we find the true faith of Christ. Not these vein man made traditions that will only lead you into deception.

Fortunately I have not fallen into apostasy. I have remained true to Jesus and the Church he established through Peter.

–
Bill

 

[one2serve]

dcana;5123886]For those who are evangelical or “non-denominational” (or both). Why or why not? What would you give as a definition for “Protestant” and why do you consider yourself to be outside of this definition? I noticed one user’s self-described religion as “Evangelical, former Protestant” and that made me curious.

Peace

I personally don’t like the term “protestant”. I don’t feel that we are protesting Christ’s church. I feel that being a Christian means a whole lot more than belonging to a peticular church. Theres a reason God called his church a universal church. I think we will be supprised when we get to Heaven and see that there are people from different denominations there.

 

[mchale]

In 1 Thess. 5:21 we are told to “test all things and hold fast to that which is true.” So, if there is a infallible interpreter that Christ left us with, then who interprets what the Magesterium or the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra) says about Scripture. I am told to test what they say. And, I have done so and found many unbiblical and even cult-like symptoms of the infallible interpreter idea.

Paul said to “test all things and retain what is good” (Sorry using a more modern and Catholic translation for clarity)… I agree with that. But I think we need a larger context here. Paul’s letter was not written to an individual, but rather to the church of the Thessalonians. Therefore, I think we take the position that it is our individual responsibility to test teachings with a grain of salt. Paul is telling the church, or the body of believers to test what is good.

Indeed, the fact that so many well meaning people have taken so many disparate, even contradictory, interpretations from the Bible shows the danger of this. After all, some will even try to claim, based on scripture, that there is no Trinity, or that Jesus was not God.

Even Paul deferred to the Church on issues (specifically whether gentile Christians needed to be circumsized and follow the Mosaic law).

Also, when 1 Peter 3:21 comes up, all that I am hearing from Catholics is what they accuse Protestants of - you can’t isolate one verse and make a theology about it. Yet, this is precisely what the RCC has done from this single, isolated verse. Further, when I read this verse in context, it has NOTHING to do with magical powers of water, rather when Catholics quote this verse, sadly they can’t even quote the ENTIRETY of it - we just see something like this:

“baptism…now saves you”

It is funny to me on the one hand, but very sad to me on the other just how much abuse this text has received. First, the text ACTUALLY reads, “and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pedge of a good conscience toward God. It save you by the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ.” My guess is that most Catholics reading this right now had no clue that the 1 Peter passage actually says this. Rather, they are comfortable not studying the Bible and relying on the Magesterium. How sad.

Frankly, I have little time for those who seem to assume that memorizing Bible versus equals understanding the Bible. Further, if you think that Catholics think that it is the water in Baptism that saves, you are sadly mistaken (or have encountered Catholics who have little understanding of their own faith). We believe that the water is a symbol and rather it is the sacrament represented by the water that is important.

Anyway, there is a double-figure in this verse - the flood symbolizes baptism, and baptism symbolizes salvation. The flood was a figure of baptism in that in both instances the water that spoke of judgment (in the flood, the death of the wicked; in baptism, the death of Christ and the believer) is the water that saves! Baptism is therfore a SYMBOL of salvation in that it depicts Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. It is like saying to the world, “Come see my funeral; I have been buried to my old life and raised to newness of life through His resurrection power!” So, in the final analysis, no ritual will save you; rather the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life guarantees your eternal inheritance.

Actually, the passage does not claim that Baptism symbolizes salvation, it claims that baptism, via the conversion of life that the recipient pledges to make, is the instrument through which one is saved by Jesus’s death and resurrection.

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul the ultimate question, “What must I do to be saved?”, Paul immediately responded with “BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Paul did not mention baptism because he understood what baptism was: an outward symbol of an inward reality. I also wonder why Christ told the thief on the cross (who was not Catholic nor had he been baptized) “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Perhaps what Christ should have done (in the mind of Catholics) is told the man next to Him that he needed someone to get him down from there so he could be baptized (and saved) and then put him back up to finish his slow, agonizing death.

Again you show a fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic understanding of Baptism. The good thief was baptized, not with water but with blood and sincere desire at the hour of his death.

Catholics do not deny that baptism by desire is real for those to whom baptism with water is unavailable. Rather, we understand that symbols are important. Therefore all of our sacraments contain symbols. The symbols are required under ordinary circumstances, but not in extraordinary ones for the sacraments that are essential to salvation.

To be continued​

Bill

 

[mchale]

And now the Rest

And, I still must insist, how do Catholics interpret this verse?:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.” (Eph. 2:9)

What I see is hostility and contemp from Catholics when this verse is even mentioned. Needless to say, that should not be the mindset on anyone who is seeking Truth. It is almost like when I mention this verse, instead of Catholics exegeting it, they deflect the issue at hand and bring up other verses out of context. It is almost as if they are saying, “Oh yeah, well our Magesterium disagrees with you so I have nothing to worry about.” This is where the RCC to me gets…well…spooky.

I thought this had been resolved between Protestants and Catholics ages ago. In part the difference of interpretation stems from the fact that Protestants and Catholics differ in how we interpret the word faith. For Catholics it simply means intellectual belief in God. For Protestants Faith includes the conversion of life that Catholics consider the “works” part when James talks about “Faith without works is dead”.

If any Protestant believes that simple belief in Jesus is enough to be saved, then I would disagree with them. If, however, they believe that faith in Jesus is more than simple belief; that it includes conversion of life, then while we might quibble about definitions, we are in essential agreement about what is required for salvation.

However, I sincerely believe with all of my heart that some Roman Catholics WILL be in paradise restored in the eschaton (the New Jerusalem) despite their doctrine (not because of it). Just as some Protestants will be and some Orthodox will be as well.

I have been labeled a “Christian” by some that are gracious in this thread and a “heretic” by others in the very same thread! It seems to me that members of the RCC don’t even agree with each other as to who is Christian and who is not. But this is no surprise. It goes back to what I was saying earlier: every document is subject to man’s interpretation. Thus, I feel quite comfortable knowing what I believe and why I believe it and stand ready to be fully accountable for my beliefs. The Catholic will find himself in the very same position - accountable before God.

You can be a heretic and a Christian at the same time . In fact, being a heretic kind of implies you are a Christian . However, since you were never Catholic, technically, you can’t be considered a heretic as far as Catholicism goes since heretic implies you started from a position of orthodoxy.

Also, where does the Bible say that believers in Christ MUST be members of the RCC? Did I miss that somewhere?

Christ came to establish the Church. One unified body of believers. The Catholic Church simply means the Church of all believers. The term Roman is usually added to distinguish the Catholic Church from other churches that claim to be Catholic (including the Orthodox) but more properly speaking only refers to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church).

If there had been no schisms or heresies, we would all just think of ourselves as the Church.

Finally, Protestantism is simply the result of the Reformation whose key distinctive is that the Bible is the final rule of authority in the Christians life - not Roman Catholic traditions.

Evangelicalism is the belief that a personal conversion is necessary (not just doing man-made rituals) for salvation. In other words, we are not “born of God” or “born of the Spirit” or “born again” by doing any particular ritual - rather we are regenerated by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. There is also emphasis on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Tradition is not made by the Church, but was established by Christ as were the “rituals”. Jesus forgave sins and gave the apostles the power to forgive sins (hence confession), he gave us the Eucharist at the Last Supper, baptism when he was baptised. I could go on. These rituals are part of God’s plan of salvation.

I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone in this thread, but I must be true to my Lord and what He has revealed to us through His Word.

I prefer to be true to the Lord as opposed to one of my own making, hence I am Catholic .

–
Bill

 

[Hilde89]

I’ve never heard of Evangelicals considering themselves to be not Protestant. That sounds strange to me.