Intrigued by Catholicism, but just can't convert for many reasons

[guanophore]

Oh boy, I thought we were focusing on authority but now I get replies for everything else....

You did bring a variety of issues.

But Protestants also see teaching authority in their churches, in their pastors, teachers, and leaders.  There is quite an internal selection process to become a leader, and therefore, undermining their authority is the fastest way to alienate yourself from a Protestant church, trust me.

Yes. But the question must be raised, from whence came such authority? Catholics believe that all authority comes from God, and therefore by those He has appointed. The Apostles taught that self appointed authorities were not valid.

In the same way that a Protestant feels the calling from the Holy Spirit to be a pastor, doesn’t a Catholic get that his vocation is to be a priest?

Yes. But he just does not stand up one day and put on a stole and alb and proclaim himself arrived. His calling is discerned by those which Jesus placed in authority for this purpose.

Now, how does a Protestant pastor get his authority and how do I get the authority to preach my interpretation? The Holy Spirit. And in Protestantism, we are all saints, and we are all priests.

Yes, there is a priesthood of all believes, and yes, we are all called to be holy, and set aside to be vessels of Christ. However, the Holy Spirit always directs the faithful to the Truth. The Holy Spirit does not reveal to one person a doctrine that is opposite of what He has already revealed to the Church. In the cases of such incompatible doctrines, it is clear that one of them comes from a source other than the Holy Spirit.

And Fr. Serpa agrees we are all saints here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=9593
Notice in 1 Peter 2, no distinction between the lay and the consecrated is indicated.

The fact that it is not mentioned in this letter, which is sent to laypersons, does not mean it doesn’t exist. The NT is a reflection of the faith, contained in letters and memoirs. It was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, which is why it cannot be used to extract the proper faith from it. It was meant to be read and understood it it’s context, which is the Catholic Church.

 Many of you pointed out there is no mutual exclusivity between the Catholic system and a relationship with God.  But can you then answer, what is the **necessity **of the Catholic system, if it's possible that we are all a royal priesthood?

We are all a royal priesthood. Just as Jesus intended for Israel to be a priestly people to reveal Him to the nations. In Israel we see the type and form of what was later revealed in the Church, a priesthood of all believers, a ministerial priesthood (to serve the believers) and a great High Priest.

 

[eddie_too]

from the beginning of the Church and throughout its history, there have been people who have taught that Jesus was not really a man; and, that Jesus was not really God; and, that there is not a HolyTrinity; and, that humans can earn their way to heaven; and, that Apostolic Succession is not real; and, on and on and on.

to use that as proof that the teachings of the Successors to the Apostles are not faithful to Jesus is far outweighed by the fact that the current teachings of the RCC are and have been consistent with the body of believers that has thrived throughout the centuries, who now number in the 100’s of millions, and that has produced thousands of men and women of such holiness that they are venerated as being in the perpetual presence of almighty God.

sure, a person who opposes the RCC would use shallow reasoning to avoid saying Yes to Jesus.

there is a real difference between saying yes to a Jesus that one knows in a very limited sense and saying yes to a Jesus that one knows in a deep and knowledgeable sense.

of course people with very limited intellects (of below average intelligence) are justified in believing in a Christ and relying solely on that belief because they possess a very limited intellectual ability to know of and understand Him, for example the mentally retarded or brain-damaged.

but, people of ordinary and above intelligence are denying their birthright when they limit their understanding of Jesus to a single fact, that He died for their sins. there is so much more to the mystery of the Incarnation.

when Paul speaks of preaching Jesus and Him crucified, Paul is not saying that is all one needs to know about Christ. that comment is one line in thousands of words written by Paul. all of those other words used by Paul were designed to give their readers and listeners more information about who and what Jesus is for those who believe. Paul understood that faith grows or faith dies based on the efforts of the believer. the efforts i am speaking of here are both the effort to learn all one can know about Jesus and the effort to act in accordance with that knowledge.

yes, RCC theologians have SPECULATED that almighty God may have a saving mechanism for those who are profoundly ignorant of Jesus. the most profoundly ignorant would be those who have never even heard of Jesus Christ. however, that is speculation.

what Jesus taught His apostles and what they handed down to their successors were many teachings and deep insights in to those teachings. teachings that included but were clearly not limited to the primacy of Peter, apostolic succession, the seven sacraments, the Real Presence, the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit and the moral teachings of Christ.

the apostles knew and taught what they received from Christ. that knowledge included the fact that Jesus created a Church that could overcome the powers of Lucifer. that Church contained many mechanisms, practices, rituals and sacraments that enabled the believer to become stronger and stronger in their faith and its practices until, by the grace of God, the believer him or herself became one of those mechanisms Christ gave the world for the salvation of souls. and, all of that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to knowing Jesus.

but those who have heard of Jesus and know He is God and know He suffered and died for their sins will be asked at judgment why this simple and very limited knowledge did not motivate them to delve in to the depths of Jesus life and teachings so that His life and teachings could have the profound positive and holy effect that they are intended to have on the souls of those who believe in Him. the question at judgment might well be, “why did you not allow yourself to become the seed that bore much fruit as I (remember it is almighty God asking the question here) intended you to be?”

that belief in the salvific life and effort of Jesus is only the beginning of what God has in store for us. knowing that it is only the beginning is an important part of what the protestant reformers lost when they abandoned the guidance of the successors to the apostles.

even many of us Catholics bristle at some of the moral teachings of the RCC. however, we know that such questioning and resistance is a consequence of our sinful natures and our limited spiritual developments. every faithful member of the RCC wages a daily spiritual battle to overcome their sins and to exhibit Christ in their daily acts and decisions. becoming or being a member of the RCC does NOT eliminate temptation of the giving in to temptation. but it does give the believer many methods, aids and ways to resist temptation.

my sins are before me always is an essential cry of the soul that is in a state of positive spiritual development.

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it the historical errors of the Catholic Church that necessitated Protestantism?

The Reformation was precipitated by corruption, greed, and abuses. Rebellion and disobedience is NEVER "necessary.

  **Furthermore, didn't Jesus eliminate any further need for Jewish high priests and animal sacrifices (the "system" of Judaism)?  **

Yes.

There is no longer any need for the Levitical priesthood, as He has fulfilled it’s purpose. The New Testament priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek.
CaliLobo;10268742:

Why are we replacing the Jewish "system" of priests and rituals with the Catholic "system" of priests and rituals?

I thought Jesus was supposed to eliminate all that.

He fulfilled it, and He replaced it:

Heb 7:11-13
Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood — for the people received the law under this priesthood — what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron? 12 **For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. **

We are under a new law, and a new priesthood. I suggest a reading of the book of Hebrews on this point, especially chapter 7. Protestants by and large ignore this book, especially this chapter.

Speaking of why we may need to eliminate all that:

Catholics are not at liberty to “eliminate” any of what was passed down to us from the Apostles. We are bound to receive and maintain the whole faith, which is a unified and seamless garment. We can’t just pick and choose from the parts that seem to suit us.

2 Tim 4:3-5
3 For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths.

Not if you ask converts, especially those who converted from the CC.

You are right, because I do ask this of lapsed Catholics often. Most of them have never studied the documents of the Magesterium, do not understand the teachings of the Church, and never explored why we have these things in Sacred Tradition. They are, as I once was, very ignorant of the faith into which they were baptized. I wandered about in Protestant ecclesial communities for about 20 years before I finally studied by way back to the One Faith.

When the discussion gets back to evangelization, I can show you some dire statistics about the state of Catholicism in the West, even in heavily Catholic countries.

No need. I will sadly stipulate that the majority of persons identifying themselves as Catholic do not accept the teachings of the Church, and do not practice or vote their faith.
The question is, will you deny the Truth because of those who depart from it? Will you model yourself after the example of Judas, rather than those who are faithful?

 I can tell you that American Protestant churches operate with the idea that only FOUR PERCENT of people 30 and under in the USA attend church regularly.

This would not surprise me in the least. I place no value in the statistics of how many people are baptized Catholic. I think it does not matter whatsoever, if one rejects that into which they were baptized. On the contrary, their last state is WORSE than their first.

 **Protestant missionaries to Poland will tell you that Polish people are jaded with religion because of the dogmatic, ritualistic nature of the Catholic Church.  **

Yes, there is a great need for catechesis among Catholics, many of which do not understand their faith, and demonstrate a form of religion, without the power thereof.
CaliLobo;10268742:

 Therefore, how is the Magisterium and tradition effective in converting people and bringing them to relationships with Jesus?

They hold and teach the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles. It is this faith through which the Spirit works to bring conversion. When Catholics study their faith, they develop a personal understanding of Jesus, and His Gospel, and catch fire. Most nominal Catholics do not even read their Bibles, and the Church teaches that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

 The stats don't show it, and that's why I believe we need the "upgrade" I mentioned earlier.  And it's an upgrade which can also claim to have authority coming from Jesus.

Yes, I suppose you can claim you are a turnip also, but that will not make it true.

 P.S. Speaking of narrow path, any Protestant around the world, especially in Europe, and increasingly in America, feels he is on the narrow path.

This is an example of what I was calling emotional reasoning. “Feeling” one is on the narrow path does not make it so. When the faithful rely on such “feelings” to lead them in the path of Truth, they inevitably go off track. The Holy Spirit does not lead in opposite and mutually exclusive directions. He always leads toward unity.

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

you have repeatedly spoken of the magesterium involving itself in the politics of the world and you have mentioned that Jesus never did this.

i think that you need to re-read the gospels.

at least on one occasion Jesus taught His followers that they needed to act within a moral real in all of their daily activities.

Jesus told the tax collectors (things do not get much more political than collecting taxes) not to collect more than a just levy.

He told the soldiers (again, agents of the state) to accept only their agreed upon wages and not to use their overwhelming force to take what was not theirs.

He excoriated the scribes and pharisees for not following the teachings of Moses. He called them whited tombstones. He called them hypocrites.

why would His selected leaders not follow His example and instruct those involved in civil governance during the current times.

if the leaders of the Church are not to determine what constitutes faithful membership in the Body of Christ, who is to decide?

if every individual has the right to decide what Jesus taught, then Jesus never taught anybody anything beyond “do whatever you think is right”, then there is no body of faith.

what does that mean when christians say “we are saved by the Cross of Christ?”

that simple phrase means many things to some and means things only a few understand.

it seems to me the heart of your arguments is that “ignorance is bliss and let us just keep it that way”. that is not the way a Roman Catholic sees life.

 

[eddie_too]

calilobo,

as regards authority and christianity, many protestant ministers and pastors are self-appointed.

no catholic priest is self-appointed.

henry VIII appointed himself head of the church.

martin luther never even intended to begin a church different from the RCC.

none of the founders of any protestant church can trace their authority to Jesus except by saying their teachings come from the Bible.

as the well known (at least to many) goes, “even the devil can quote scripture”.

the very fact that the many protestant pastors, preachers, ministers and leaders teach contradictory facts about Jesus should convince an objective person that they lack divine authority.

unless of course, for some reason, a person believes God can contradict Himself.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Because this is a criminal law problem, not a moral problem. Murder and theft are crimes with victims, and need to be enforced. No one is saying we should decriminalize murder and theft.

Why are they crimes? Who says it is wrong to kill or steal? Who says there is a victim? You made a lot of assumptions or judgments and those are moral judgments and we are legislating regarding them. The only reason it is a “criminal law” problem is because we as a society decided its wrong–and that is a moral judgment. I never said anyone was saying we should decriminalize murder and theft–so why the statement?

On the other hand, gay relationships, abortions, and euthanasia are not crimes. These are human rights.

Source for these assertions please. Abortion is a human right? Isn’t the human being aborted a victim? What about their human rights?

You say we can’t allow or tolerate sin? You say you want to change people

Please provide where I said this.

Once again, relationship with Jesus is more important than the Catholic system of Tradition and Magisterium. Once again, if Tradition and Magisterium are hindering people from getting closer to Christ (see CNN article), don’t we need an upgrade?

Would you provide the Biblical reference for this relationship with Jesus. I see Jesus calling disciples:

“He said to him, ‘Follow me’” (Mk 2:14)
“Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother” (Mk 3:5)
“He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, ‘Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.’” (Mk 8:34)

What did his disciple do? “So they went off and preached repentence” (Mk 6:12)

I see a lot of being called to repentence, to following Christ and to doing the will of God. Now having a relationship with Christ makes this easier–but simply having a relationship is not enough–it is a byproduct of doing what Christ called us to.

What’s important is heeding the call, repenting, following Christ and doing the will of the Father. And Tradition and the Magisterium make sure that we know the authentic will of the Father–making it easier for us to actually do the will of the Father–contrary to your assertion.

Jesus. Jesus. Consult with more experienced believers and pray to Jesus directly. He speaks to us in different ways, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Did I say there was anything wrong with God speaking to us in different ways? Or that he doesn’t speak to us in different ways. No.

I asked you a question which you really didn’t answer–When you and a fellow Christian both believe God spoke to you regarding the same issue–but you each received a different answer–how do you determine who is correct? Consultation provides you with the assurance? Or do you not think its important? And haven’t you really turned yourself into you own pope?

It’s all about one’s personal relationship with Jesus, not the “system” of a particular church.

It is all about repenting, following Christ and doing the will of his Father. How do we know the will of his Father? We know it because we know “how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and because we believed Paul when he said “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught either by oral statement or by a letter of ours.” (2 Thess 2:15)

The Church is not a “system”. It is not a set of man made doctrines. The Church is the mechanism established by Christ to protect his revelation until he comes again to judge the living and the dead. The Church is a living institution whose teaching is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the living body of Christ whose head is Christ. The Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth” is how we “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that [we] were taught either by oral statement or by a letter…” That is a far cry from some “system”.

Only Jesus changes and saves people.

Where have I said differently? And more importantly where does the Church say differently?

What hinders people is not Tradition or the Magisterium. It is peoples loss of a belief in sin. Most people when they encounter a Church teaching they disagree with don’t approach it by saying–why does the Church teach this? What have 2000 years of great thinkers and theologians seen and understand that I am not seeing. No most people simply say the Church is wrong without giving it much thought. Most people are not in seach of the truth to which they should conform their lives but rather they are in seach of a church and a truth that will conform to their beliefs.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Kal2012]

Regarding authority, I get the claim that the CC is the original that Jesus founded. I am mindful of where Catholics are getting their authority from.

But Protestants also see teaching authority in their churches, in their pastors, teachers, and leaders. There is quite an internal selection process to become a leader, and therefore, undermining their authority is the fastest way to alienate yourself from a Protestant church, trust me.

In the same way that a Protestant feels the calling from the Holy Spirit to be a pastor, doesn’t a Catholic get that his vocation is to be a priest?

Now, how does a Protestant pastor get his authority and how do I get the authority to preach my interpretation? The Holy Spirit. And in Protestantism, we are all saints, and we are all priests.

When the discussion gets back to evangelization, I can show you some dire statistics about the state of Catholicism in the West, even in heavily Catholic countries.

I can tell you that American Protestant churches operate with the idea that only FOUR PERCENT of people 30 and under in the USA attend church regularly.

Let me also show you a statistic about a supposedly heavily Catholic country, Poland:
joshuaproject.net/countries.php?rog3=PL
According to that table, only 0.25% of Poles are Evangelical. That is the statistic that the Joshua Project is operating on. In addition, I can point you stats that show only 30% of Polish Catholics attend Mass. Among that, how many are true practicing believers? I’ve studied abroad there and I can tell you that young Polish people want Poland to be as secular as Germany, France, and Britain.

1. Authority: I have a hard time with the idea that one protestant church denomination is just as authoritative as another, despite theological differences. Historically, these denominations split off because they didn’t like some part of the teaching of the mother church. I think disagreements are valid and should be discussed. However, it’s hard to pretend that there’s much authority in the protestant world when, even between denominations, they are inconsistent with their message and value system.

 

[Kal2012]

Ultimately, you think that it’s a bad thing that only 30% of Poles are faithful. I say, Praise the Lord, given that the Germans and the Russians tried to destroy their culture less than 100 years ago. 30% is a great number considering how the Soviets actively destroyed most religious organizations in the countries they occupied.

I’d say that the number of religious faithful is probably a lot smaller in other countries occupied by the Soviets.

 

[St_Francis]

I may be erratic about posting because… well, because life has suddenly overtaken me!

Oh boy, I thought we were focusing on authority but now I get replies for everything else…

Well, I know that I often take a copy and reply in a WP app, then transfer it back. Sometimes I miss some turn of the thread when I so that. We can probably ignore all that for now.

Regarding authority, I get the claim that the CC is the original that Jesus founded. I am mindful of where Catholics are getting their authority from.

OK, but you seem to have a problem with what that authority consists of, so I will go into that a bit.

The Church has authority over *faith *and over *morals, *and is protected from *teaching authoritatively *error in these two areas. However, individuals within the Church are not prevented from proclaiming error or committing immoral acts, but each of these two things would be against Church teaching.

WRT faith, what that means is that the Church is the repository of revealed knowledge. Hence, we (Catholics *and *Protestants know that God is Triune because this is what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that the act of consecration which occurs in the Mass is Transsubstantiation, and the bread and wine mysteriously become the Real physical Presence of Christ. Christ is as actually present after The consecration as He would be if He appeared in the church in front of us. (If you would be interested in an hour?-long description of a scientific investigation of Eucharistic miracles which is on Youtube with subtitles, I will dig up the link for you. Maybe someone else has links to other info they can provide for you.)

WRT morals, the Church’s teaching authority–protected from teaching error, remember–means that if the Church authoritatively teaches that something is immoral, then it *is *immoral.

If Christ Himself came before you and said: stealing is wrong, immoral, and people shouldn’t do it, would you believe Him? Yes (I assume). Well, the Pope is the vicar of Christ, so what he says is wrong is wrong, also.

But you must remember that morality is like the laws of nature: no one is making this stuff up. It is as foolish to say that the immorality of pre-marital sex doesn’t apply in certain situations as it would be to say that the law of gravity doesn’t apply in certain situations.

But Protestants also see teaching authority in their churches, in their pastors, teachers, and leaders. There is quite an internal selection process to become a leader, and therefore, undermining their authority is the fastest way to alienate yourself from a Protestant church, trust me.

So we see that the Catholic Church teaches with authority from God, and with His protection from teaching error.

So what are we to make of Protestant pastors being seen by their churches as having authority? Either the Protestant minister teaches in agreement with the Catholic Church, as when he talks about the Triune nature of God, or he teaches something other than what the Church teaches, such as that baptism is only symbolic, and then he is wrong. Right?

Think of the different things which the various denominations think about baptism, which I believe I mentioned earier in the thread. Of all thise different ideas, including the Catholic teaching, only one or none can be correct, no? All the ones which are not correct are wrong, no?

Since the Catholic Church has the authority from and the protection of God wrt teachings, we can see that the Catholic teaching on baptism is correct; thus, all the others are wrong.

Let’s look at it another way: where does the authority a Protestant minister have to teach come from?

Continued below…

 

[St_Francis]

…continued from above

In the same way that a Protestant feels the calling from the Holy Spirit to be a pastor, doesn’t a Catholic get that his vocation is to be a priest?

I have no idea. All I know is that a Catholic man discerning a vocation is also looking at making great sacrifices, but I have no idea what Protestants do.

Now, how does a Protestant pastor get his authority and how do I get the authority to preach my interpretation? The Holy Spirit. And in Protestantism, we are all saints, and we are all priests.

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit would *go against *Christ?!?!?! You are saying the Holy Spirit would get people to teach things which are untrue?!?!?!

Maybe you should think this through a little more, and consider what Peter said about private interpretation

Universal priesthood is found in 1 Peter 2:1-5 and 9, in which Peter is addressing exiled believers:

And Fr. Serpa agrees we are all saints here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=9593
**
Notice in 1 Peter 2, no distinction between the lay and the consecrated is indicated.**

Well, I have no idea what the idea that we are all saints has to do with this, so I’ll just talk about the idea that all are called to be priests.

What is a priest? In the OT, we see that the priests are those who offered sacrifice. (The Jewish teachers were the rabbis.)

And as it turns out, the Church teaches that we are all obliged to sacrifice, from the initial sacrifice of “the old man” to the little sacrifices we make each day.

We can see that Christ laid His Hands on the Apostles and gave them certain instructions. In this way, He established the sacrament of ordination, in which a man from the laity becomes a Priest: a man capable of offering the sacrifice of the Mass by which we worship God. The ordinary laity are unable to do to that.

Many of you pointed out there is no mutual exclusivity between the Catholic system and a relationship with God. But can you then answer, what is the **necessity **of the Catholic system, if it’s possible that we are all a royal priesthood?

In the same way that we are all called to be priests, we are all called to be kings. Does that mean we are all leaders of the nation in which we reside? Obviously not, and so it is with the priesthood of the laity–it is not the same as the Priesthood into which some are ordained.

Isn’t it the historical errors of the Catholic Church that necessitated Protestantism?

No. For one thing, Protestantism is no more necessary than geocentrism or the Flat Earth Society.

It is true that there were problems in the Church before the Protestant Revolt. In fact, one historian has pointed out that we seem to go from internal attacks to external attacks. There were problems then, there are problems now, and there have been problems in all the in between times, as evidenced in Scripture.

Furthermore, didn’t Jesus eliminate any further need for Jewish high priests and animal sacrifices (the “system” of Judaism)? Why are we replacing the Jewish “system” of priests and rituals with the Catholic “system” of priests and rituals? I thought Jesus was supposed to eliminate all that.

Why did you think Christ “was supposed to eliminate all that”? Quite clearly, Christ replaced the Jewish “system” with another “system,” which He entrusted to the Catholic Church.

We are both material and spiritual beings. Thus, God gives us what we need to make the connection, so to speak, between the material and the spiritual. Christ continues to be physically in the world in the sacrifice of the Mass. We are given material signs of God’s spiritual action in our souls through the sacraments.

…The stats don’t show it, and that’s why I believe we need the “upgrade” I mentioned earlier. And it’s an upgrade which can also claim to have authority coming from Jesus.

The fact is that people are weak, the material overpowers their ability to perceive the “small, still voice” of the supernatural. Our society pulls people away from the spiritual by its so-called Enlightenment world view.

The very idea that you have: Protestantism is later; therefore, Protestantism is better, is an “upgrade,” shows how far that worldview has penetrated not only our society but our religions. The later version of something is not necessarily better.

Therefore, how is the Magisterium and tradition effective in converting people and bringing them to relationships with Jesus?

A person has to want what God offers before he or she converts in any sense of the word. All the people in the world who think that getting the latest harcut or car or egadget or CD or… is more important than being with God are *not *going to join a Church which says these are straw.

 

[CaliLobo]

Kal2012:

Authority: I have a hard time with the idea that one protestant church denomination is just as authoritative as another, despite theological differences. Historically, these denominations split off because they didn’t like some part of the teaching of the mother church. I think disagreements are valid and should be discussed. However, it’s hard to pretend that there’s much authority in the protestant world when, even between denominations, they are inconsistent with their message and value system.

Differences arise because there is wiggle room of interpretation in the Bible. But those are side issues. With the essentials–that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and John 3:16–we are all united.
St Francis:

The Church has authority over faith and over morals, and is protected from teaching authoritatively error in these two areas. However, individuals within the Church are not prevented from proclaiming error or committing immoral acts, but each of these two things would be against Church teaching.

WRT faith, what that means is that the Church is the repository of revealed knowledge…

WRT morals, the Church’s teaching authority–protected from teaching error, remember–means that if the Church authoritatively teaches that something is immoral, then it is immoral.

So we see that the Catholic Church teaches with authority from God, and with His protection from teaching error.

So what are we to make of Protestant pastors being seen by their churches as having authority? Either the Protestant minister teaches in agreement with the Catholic Church, as when he talks about the Triune nature of God, or he teaches something other than what the Church teaches, such as that baptism is only symbolic, and then he is wrong. Right?

Think of the different things which the various denominations think about baptism, which I believe I mentioned earier in the thread. Of all thise different ideas, including the Catholic teaching, only one or none can be correct, no? All the ones which are not correct are wrong, no?

Since the Catholic Church has the authority from and the protection of God wrt teachings, we can see that the Catholic teaching on baptism is correct; thus, all the others are wrong.

Let’s look at it another way: where does the authority a Protestant minister have to teach come from?

St Francis:

Why did you think Christ “was supposed to eliminate all that”? Quite clearly, Christ replaced the Jewish “system” with another “system,” which He entrusted to the Catholic Church.

From what I’m reading, it seems like you believe the CC is correct because you believe God is “protecting it into” teaching the truth.

My answer is that Protestants get their authority directly from Jesus, who indeed did “eliminate all that” system of priests.

Why? The simple answer is that the old Levitical priesthood and law was imperfect and insufficient, and no one could be perfected through it. But Jesus, by coming to Earth, became the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (which we know nothing of his background, other than that he preceded Jesus in “awesomeness level”).

The thing is, Jesus is appointed the High Priest, who has been made perfect forever. He is appointed forever.

Therefore, he alone has occupied the position of High Priest, with no need for replacement, or passing on his duties to a Catholic priest. Since he is appointed and made perfect forever, he is also able to save people and save them forever, with assurance of salvation, as long as you abide in Jesus.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

By the way, it is NOT correct that Hebrews is ignored by Protestants. Quite the contrary. (I think you’re talking about Timothy. Hebrews is explored quite often by Protestant pastors, but Timothy is not.) Here are some online examples:

enduringword.com/commentaries/5807.htm (where I got my material for this response)
gci.org/bible/hebrews7
St Francis:

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit would go against Christ?!?!?! You are saying the Holy Spirit would get people to teach things which are untrue?!?!?!

Maybe you should think this through a little more, and consider what Peter said about private interpretation

Any believer filled with the Spirit will sense if someone if teaching untrue things. Of course the Holy Spirit doesn’t get people to teach untrue things. That’s called deception instead.

And BTW, I never said Protestantism is an upgrade because it’s newer.

 

[guanophore]

calilobo,

you have repeatedly spoken of the magesterium involving itself in the politics of the world and you have mentioned that Jesus never did this.

i think that you need to re-read the gospels.

at least on one occasion Jesus taught His followers that they needed to act within a moral real in all of their daily activities.

I agree with you, but there is also a BIG difference between individual Catholics being involved in their society as light and salt, and “the Church” or the Magesterium being involved in politics. It is true that the conflation of spiritual and secular power is one of the elements that fomented the Reformation, and is also the main reason that clergy are no longer permitted to serve in political positions. The Church wants the Magesterium to focus on spiritual leadership, not temporal, and for the laypeople to do the work of the ministry in the world.

If all those claiming to be Catholic in congress actually believed and acted acccording to the faith, the leadership of the country would look very different.

 

[guanophore]

 With the essentials--that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and John 3:16--we are all united.

On this particular point, yes, but on what the “essentials” are, we are not united, and there is no list in scripture of what they are.

From what I'm reading, it seems like you believe the CC is correct because you believe God is "protecting it into" teaching the truth.

No, it is what is called a "negative’ gift (infallibility). It means that the church is PREVENTED from falling into error. Maybe that is what you mean? Jesus taught the Truth to His Apostles, and they taught it to their successors, the Bishops. The Holy Spirit protects this once for all divine deposit of faith, so that it can be preserved without error.

My answer is that Protestants get their authority directly from Jesus, who indeed did "eliminate all that" system of priests.

Can you show how this works? Catholics believe that Jesus ordained the Apostles to participate in His priesthood in the upper room, and that they conferred these Holy Orders on others through the laying on of hands.

I am in agreement with you that Jesus fulfilled the OT Levitical Priesthood. However, He instituted a new priesthood, in which priest in the Church He founded are joined together with Himself after the order of Melchizedek.

The thing is, Jesus is appointed the High Priest, who has been made perfect forever.  **He is appointed forever.**

Yes. Those who are ordained to the priesthood are done so permanently, because the order of Melchizedek is forever.

Therefore, he alone has occupied the position of High Priest, with no need for replacement, or passing on his duties to a Catholic priest.

If Jesus thought there was no need to pass on His duties to the Church, why did He do it? Are you suggesting that He engaged in unnecessary and frivolous play acting?

By the way, it is NOT correct that Hebrews is ignored by Protestants.  Quite the contrary.  (I think you're talking about Timothy.  Hebrews is explored quite often by Protestant pastors, but Timothy is not.)  Here are some online examples:

Perhaps I was too broad in my statements. It is more accurate to say that Protestants avoid talking about the meaning of the NT priesthood. In fact, most of them deny that there is any ministerial priesthood.

You make a good point though about Timothy, because we learn much in these letters about the conferring of Holy Orders, apostolic succession, and the duties of Bishops.

(where I got my material for this response)

Thanks for citing your source.

 Any believer filled with the Spirit will sense if someone if teaching untrue things.  Of course the Holy Spirit doesn't get people to teach untrue things.  That's called deception instead.

Well, herein lies the problem. The “senses” of people are influenced by their experiences and education (or lack of it) so when they respond to what they hear, they interpret according to whatever filters they have. Even the most sincere and “spirit filled Christians” can be misled. The problem is that all these well intentioned and faithful Christians are espousing mutually exclusive doctrines. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit!

 And BTW, I never said Protestantism is an upgrade because it's newer.

I don’t believe I accused you of saying so. What I want to know is, who gave you the divine revelation to pronouce “an upgrade is needed”? Why should your opinion about this have more value to anyone than the opinion of those to whom God gave the authority to shepherd His flock?

 

[St_Francis]

Differences arise because there is wiggle room of interpretation in the Bible. But those are side issues. With the essentials–that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and John 3:16–we are all united.

Regarding authority, I get the claim that the CC is the original that Jesus founded. I am mindful of where Catholics are getting their authority from.

To me, these two statements are contradictory, so I think I am not sure what *you *mean by authority, so… what do you mean by authority?

 

[eddie_too]

in protestantism, authority comes through the discernment persuasive ability of a human being.

a pastor, a minister, the founder of a protestant church, according to calilobo, discerns the teachings of Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

in catholicism, authority comes through the magisterium, the hierarchical priesthood that exists through the gift of Apostolic Succession.

it is clear from Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition that Jesus Himself created a hierarchical structure for His Church. there are a multitude of passages in the NT that demonstrate He did this. to cite just a couple, there is the well known case where, after the Lord’s Ascension and while the Apostles were still together in Jerusalem, Paul went to Jerusalem to receive validation of his preaching of the Gospel from the Twelve selected by Jesus to establish His Church. in another passage, the gospel writer tells the readers that Jesus taught the Twelve teachings that He did not provide to others of His followers and listeners. finally, we can read in Acts that the Twelve decided to institute the order of the deaconate. in Acts we read that St. Stephen the first martyr was also one of the first followers of Christ to be ordained by the twelve to the order of the deaconate.

in addition to the Scriptural support for the hierarchical structure, which is just another way of saying for the magisterium, we have from the earliest available history of the RCC the fact that from the beginning there existed in the christian communities different roles for the Lord’s followers. for anyone interested in this historical evidence, i suggest they research saints like Polycarp, Ignatious of Antioch, and other early Church fathers.

it seems beyond dispute that Jesus did create a hierarchical structure for His Church. if calilobo has an insight to provide us that might cause us to think otherwise, i encourage him to provide it. i, for one, am very interested in whether or not calilobo understands that the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church was created by Jesus.

the understanding of authority within protestantism and within catholicism are distinctly and substantively different. calilobo has stated this fact himself.

the question then becomes which understanding does a prudent man believe most likely came from Jesus.

to the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the Gospels is it written that Jesus gave everyone the same gifts, the same knowledge and the same authority from Him.

in fact, even protestants do not believe that every believer possesses the same authority. that is why they have ministers and pastors, some even have bishops.

as calilobo recognizes and has told us, the big difference is that the protestant leaders are either self-appointed, elected or selected by those who have previously established their authority within their ecclesial community.

so, calilobo seems to believe that leaders are more likely to be knowledgeable of and more faithful to the teachings of Jesus because they are not part of the apostolic succession that has existed from the beginning of the Lord’s Church than if they are part of that succession.

the primary support calilobo gives for this belief is that he disagrees with how the current Magisterium of the Catholic Church is leading the Church. his disagreements are many. they range from the manner in which the liturgy is performed through the moral principles and laws that are promulgated to the theological dogmas that are also promulgated. that is meant to be a summary list of calilobo’s disagreements and is not meant to be a comprehensive listing.

to support their belief in the RCC as opposed to protestantism, knowledgeable and faithful Catholics on the other hand, have history, the writings of early Christians ranging from ignatius of antioch through gregory of nazianzus, gregory of nyssa, augustine and others, later in history they have the writings of men like thomas aquinas, john of the cross and john henry newman. perhaps most importantly they can point to Sacred Tradition wherein the teachings they believe were handed down without alteration through apostolic succession from one generation of believers to the next.

in addition, many, many catholics (and the many catholics i am talking about here is not limited to those who have been canonized by the Church) have lived lives of heroic virtue exemplary charity and exemplary courage. many miracles have been attributed to these men and wome. the RCC has preserved the memories of many of these these people, the canonized saints, as members of Jesus’ Church whose lives deserve veneration. and these are the just tip of the iceberg of the efficacy of the RCC in lives of its believers.

also, it was the RCC that preserved dogmatic teachings such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Cross of Christ. in fact, the RCC was the sole preserver and provider of these dogmas for over 1,000 years at which point some members of the eastern Roman Catholic Church split off, primarily because of a dispute on the Primacy of Peter. about 500 years after that, others who disagreed with the hierarchy found followers and gave birth to the protestant reformation.

none of what i listed as coming from and through the RCC can be claimed by protestantism. as calilobo has aptly demonstrated, protestantism has provided the world with a multitude of people divided over the meaning of Jesus Chris, His life, His death and His Resurrection.

as i said earlier, i welcome any information, thoughts or observations calilobo can provide that give a prudent and reasonable person good reason to support protestantism instead of the wealth of history and teaching that comes to us through the RCC.

mere disagreement with the way the magisterium of the RCC is doing its job does not seem sufficient to me.

 

[MarkInOregon]

From what I’m reading, it seems like you believe the CC is correct because you believe God is “protecting it into” teaching the truth.

My answer is that Protestants get their authority directly from Jesus, who indeed did “eliminate all that” system of priests.

If Jesus really did this would you cite the passage where he did it.

How do you explain Jesus appointing 12 apostles whom he invested with his authority? How do you explain those apostles appointing others and successors?

The thing is, Jesus is appointed the High Priest, who has been made perfect forever. He is appointed forever.

Therefore, he alone has occupied the position of High Priest, with no need for replacement, or passing on his duties to a Catholic priest. Since he is appointed and made perfect forever, he is also able to save people and save them forever, with assurance of salvation, as long as you abide in Jesus.

Jesus appointed successors whom he sent with his authority–with the authority the Father had given to him. He appointed people to carry on his earthly ministry in a special way. The priest doesn’t act as a replacement for Christ or of his own authority. He acts in persona Christi.

Any believer filled with the Spirit will sense if someone if teaching untrue things. Of course the Holy Spirit doesn’t get people to teach untrue things. That’s called deception instead.

This doesn’t seem to be working in practice–or there are a lot of deceived people out there all thinking they hold the truth.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Kal2012]

in protestantism, authority comes through the discernment persuasive ability of a human being.

mere disagreement with the way the magisterium of the RCC is doing its job does not seem sufficient to me.

In my protestant days, I would have said something about how the RCC is too structured and that people don’t have the freedom to explore Christ outside of the prescribed norms. I’ve gotten over that, so it’s hard to flesh out the idea because it’s just so irrational to me these days.

Authority in the protestant world is so different than in the RCC. So, we end up back at the whole “well, the authority goes back to Jesus”.

A new protestant church just isn’t going to have the authority of an established church that’s been in the community for years and years. It’s not like that if the Catholics open up a new church in an area. People know what they are getting when they get a Catholic priest. On the other hand, a younger minister might be ordained, but…does he really have authority? Does going to seminary give him his authority? Does he/she have to go to seminary or can they just have a ‘call’ on their life to preach ‘the word’? I don’t know what I’m really getting from the church and that teacher. Is he/she really teaching what needs to be taught to live a Christian life? Authority just isn’t clear-cut. It’s about individuals, not the group. W/Catholics, it’s about the group, not individuals.

That’s why I keep ending up going back to either you end up going Catholic or Jewish, (if you are serious about getting into alignment with the tradition/history/authority of the church.)

Am I going to choose the church that has a year, 10, 100 years of authority (okay, the Lutherans started out in the 1500’s) or 2013? Or am I going to choose the Hebrew path and call it 5773 (they measure from creation)? I may not always agree with the Catholic Church, but I respect the authority of the Church a lot more than that of some random protestant church.

 

[vsedriver]

Differences arise because there is wiggle room of interpretation in the Bible. But those are side issues. With the essentials–that Jesus is Lord and Savior, and John 3:16–we are all united.

side issues are what gets you Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Jim Jones. Side issues are just as important as the essentials.

My answer is that Protestants get their authority directly from Jesus, who indeed did “eliminate all that” system of priests.

Jesus did not ‘eliminate all that’. That is a protestant misconception. Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it… that is to make it perfect. But the High Priest was not alone. He had others who also functioned as priests. So the CC also has Jesus as High Priest and then an ordained priesthood as well as priestly people from whom members can become ordained priests. In Jewish law only members of one particular tribe could be temple priests. Now all believers are members of the priestly tribe, not necessarily that all are ordained priests.

Therefore, he alone has occupied the position of High Priest, with no need for replacement, or passing on his duties to a Catholic priest. Since he is appointed and made perfect forever, he is also able to save people and save them forever, with assurance of salvation, as long as you abide in Jesus.

Jesus is not being replaced by the Catholic priest.

Any believer filled with the Spirit will sense if someone if teaching untrue things. Of course the Holy Spirit doesn’t get people to teach untrue things. That’s called deception instead.

so anyone who follows a false prophet is not filled with the Spirit? How are the sheep to recognize the wolf in sheep’s clothing? Are you saying the Holy Spirit will not allow them to be deceived?

As for me, Jesus is Lord and King. Every king has a chief steward who watches over the kingdom till the king returns. The chief steward holds the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Where Peter is there is Christ’s Church and where Peter’s successor is there is Christ’s Church.

 

[Julamp2000]

Hello… I’m a Protestant from New Mexico.

Sorry this is long and unfocused, but my mind is in such conflict about all areas of Catholicism.

For the past few years I’ve been more and more intrigued by the Catholic Church. I like the intellectual edge it has, and its claim to be the original that Jesus founded. But the more I look into it and ask around, the more I get confused. And because of this confusion, it just makes it impossible to pull the trigger and convert. Here’s some reasons why:

• The Vatican says we should vote against gay marriage and abortion rights. The Vatican says one cannot be pro-choice and Catholic. But I can always find another liberal parish that disagrees.
• Why should the Church continue to hold such positions, then? Even when so many Catholics disagree with the Vatican? Even when social conservatism is dead now with the reelection of Obama, and gay marriage winning by popular vote in three US states? Isn’t the Church least effective when it meddles with politics the most? Doesn’t the fact that Jesus said “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” while also being called Prince of Peace, mean that Jesus never came for social and political peace, that he was never a political reformer?
• Since so many Catholics disagree with the Vatican, doesn’t that make the Church less effective? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church just tolerate political dissent like the Protestant churches, and not advocate any political position in particular? Why are abortion, gay marriage, cloning, euthanasia, and (I forgot the other) such immutable issues for Catholics? Yes I’ve heard natural law and moral issues. But aren’t civil rights important?
• But then again, if the Catholic church were to liberalize politically or tolerate political dissent, what would it then offer that I can’t find in a Protestant church?? Protestant churches are okay with political diversity because they know it’s secondary to the main mission of preaching the Gospel. Politics doesn’t save us after all, right?
• For every worship-related reason why the Catholic Church is so great I can always find a reason to counter that. For example, some love the liturgy, but others cannot get anything out of the old liturgical style of worship, because it’s just empty rituals to them. And why should communion be reserved to only Catholics, isn’t that offensive? And if confession is so important why do most people not do it, and live a life of “Catholic guilt”?
• In general, why are Catholic churches so dead and boring? Isn’t the faith “more alive” in a Protestant church? I appreciate that Protestant churches have more entertaining music, are more welcoming, will say hi to you if you’re new, and will ask you to fill out a welcome card so they can get back to you! Even if it’s annoying and in your face, it at least shows they care! Where are the people that care in a Catholic church, besides the nuns (many which give me platitudes of advice when I talk to them)? I just get the sense that the Catholic faith is so personal, but why can’t Catholics get involved with the lives of others, form small groups, and talk about faith with each other? I get the sense that there’s a disconnect between priests and nuns and laypeople, because they live a life of cloistered study. Where are the laypeople that care and I can talk about faith with?
• In general I just don’t see Catholics practicing their faith, the way Protestants do. The Catholic Church does have the edge intellectually, but why doesn’t that translate into a growing, vibrant church? All I see is a moribund, boring church with inconsistency in the beliefs among members. In fact, Catholics who convert to Protestantism complain that the Catholic Church is just a bunch of rote rituals with no meaning. Maybe they need to stop sticking to tradition just to stick to it, adopt more contemporary worship, be more welcoming, and not be so politically involved, so they can convert the younger generation??

Sorry this is long and unfocused, but my mind is in such conflict about all areas of Catholicism. The Catholic Church has such potential, but right now Protestant churches have the edge in how “alive” their faith is. I just don’t see Catholics stepping up. Why don’t the bishops just excommunicate people left and right anymore? I do need to figure out where my faith is gonna turn next, so I appreciate your help.

 

[cheezey]

Jesus did not ‘eliminate all that’. That is a protestant misconception. Jesus did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it… that is to make it perfect. But the High Priest was not alone. He had others who also functioned as priests. So the CC also has Jesus as High Priest and then an ordained priesthood as well as priestly people from whom members can become ordained priests. In Jewish law only members of one particular tribe could be temple priests. Now all believers are members of the priestly tribe, not necessarily that all are ordained priests.

Jesus is not being replaced by the Catholic priest.

As for me, Jesus is Lord and King. Every king has a chief steward who watches over the kingdom till the king returns. The chief steward holds the keys to the kingdom. Jesus gave the keys to Peter. Where Peter is there is Christ’s Church and where Peter’s successor is there is Christ’s Church.

I am observing this thread for similar reasons; to know and understand better why I want to convert. I must say; this is the best response to this particular question I have ever read. This is the one that made me understand this issue. Better than any book. Thank you immensely. :thankyou: And after a very, very tough day, too