Is it better to attempt to convert to Protestantism?

[ballin]

Why even go so far as Protestantism? Don’t we believe that anyone who sincerely tries to follow God as they understand Him can be saved, as long as their lack of knowledge of Christ is through no fault of their own? Surely it would be even more attractive to say ‘just be a good person as you perceive goodness to be, and follow God as best you can’?

Bah humbug. We who know the truth have an obligation, I think, to communicate that truth to others as fully as possible. To do less would be a serious misuse of our gifts, no?

I think you have a point.

But if we must not communicate the full truth to fellow Protestants, should we be communicating the full truth to anyone else? If they can indeed be saved without our truths, what do we hope to given them through our communication of the truth?

Maybe we should just ask everyone to be good persons, to the best of their knowledge?

 

[Vico]

Since Protestants are just our separate brethren and does not imply any automatic damnation as a result of belonging to it, is it better to try and convert non-believers to a variation of Protestantism?

A very doctrinally minimal, more appealing form of Protestantism can be very motivational for people to come and get baptized. So is that better than trying to convert to Catholicism? Should the church replace its own work or fund Protestant evangelization instead?

The question includes really two: should one attempt to convert? and is Protestantism better than Catholicism?

Catholics can be certain of remission of sins through the Holy Mystery of Confession even without perfect contrition, and be certain of receiving the strengthening of the Holy Spirit through the Holy Mysteries. If a Catholic is asked if being a Catholic is preferred to other faiths then the proper answer is yes, because it contains the* fullness* of the faith. It is to be preferred over all others.

St. Paul did attempt to convert people, as did other Apostles. Did the Apostles set a good example for us?

 

[ballin]

The question includes really two: should one attempt to convert? and is Protestantism better than Catholicism?

Catholics can be certain of remission of sins through the Holy Mystery of Confession even without perfect contrition, and be certain of receiving the strengthening of the Holy Spirit through the Holy Mysteries. If a Catholic is asked if being a Catholic is preferred to other faiths then the proper answer is yes, because it contains the* fullness* of the faith. It is to be preferred over all others.

St. Paul did attempt to convert people, as did other Apostles. Did the Apostles set a good example for us?

It is preferred for which goal though? Isn’t our ultimate goal salvation?

Because if Protestants too are simply our separated brethren and not in any risk of loosing salvation as a result of being Protestant, is it not better to preach to non-Christians to convert to something much easier like that?

 

[LilyM]

I think you have a point.

But if we must not communicate the full truth to fellow Protestants, should we be communicating the full truth to anyone else? If they can indeed be saved without our truths, what do we hope to given them through our communication of the truth?

Maybe we should just ask everyone to be good persons, to the best of their knowledge?

Jesus knew full well that people wouldn’t listen to His teachings. Sure enough they didn’t, and still don’t. Didn’t stop Him trying to teach, for the sake of those who WOULD listen.

See, let’s say a stranger comes to you and asks you the nearest way to town x. Is it really more likely that they will stumble across the right road unaided by you, or that they will ask but refuse to listen to your answer?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Since Protestants are just our separate brethren and does not imply any automatic damnation as a result of belonging to it, is it better to try and convert non-believers to a variation of Protestantism?

A very doctrinally minimal, more appealing form of Protestantism can be very motivational for people to come and get baptized. So is that better than trying to convert to Catholicism? Should the church replace its own work or fund Protestant evangelization instead?

As one of those without a religion prior to becoming Catholic -
Absolutely not!

Protestants are our separated brethren and many are very fine Christians, but they are, none the less, most through no fault of their own, lacking in the complete Truth.

In particular, they do not have the Eucharist. To me, there is nothing in modifying the moral teachings to permit some things that are gravely immoral, thus making it more palatable, to replace the lack of the Eucharist.

Unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you have no life within you.

We cannot change the Teachings of Christ to make them more palatable. We are the ones who need to change, to repent and turn away from sin.

But they are our separated brethren and we are not even suppossed to get them to be Catholic anyway. They can’t be missing out on anything, right? If they are missing out on something, shouldn’t we actively try to convince them to come in to the Catholic Church?

Yes, we should be active in calling all people to the Church founded by Christ Jesus, whether they are Protestant, Hindu or nothing.

Because if Protestants too are simply our separated brethren and not in any risk of loosing salvation as a result of being Protestant, is it not better to preach to non-Christians to convert to something much easier like that?

We do not KNOW that they are not in any risk of losing salvation. We know what Jesus taught us. We cannot go through the Teachings of the Church and say, “This one is necessary, but this other one, well, maybe we can compromise here.”

We hope and pray for their salvation, through their Trinitarian Baptism and their faith, but without the Eucharist and the rest of the Sacraments, we must rely on the Mercy of God.

It is not ‘converting’ if we do not have to change. A denomination may claim that same-sex unions are licit, but that does not make it so with God. Watering down the requirements so people do not have to change, to repent, does not help their eternal salvation - and that is our ultimate goal - that all may enjoy eternity with God in Heaven. Altering the Truth does not advance that cause.

 

[Filioque]

Would you give someone a stone if they asked for bread?

 

[Vico]

It is preferred for which goal though? Isn’t our ultimate goal salvation?

Because if Protestants too are simply our separated brethren and not in any risk of loosing salvation as a result of being Protestant, is it not better to preach to non-Christians to convert to something much easier like that?

The ultimate goal is sanctification and being a living likeness of Christ. If we are a living likeness of Christ then there will be much glory given to God and in heaven, and this is more than a minimal salvation (for there is greater glory in heaven for those that have coopered with the will of God to a greater degree). To live that holy life it should be in more perfect charity rather than less perfect, and that requires that we do not provide scandal. To hold contrary doctrines or reject the government or sacraments of the Church provides scandal as well a peril to ourselves.

Protestants are at risk of loosing salvation, from the moment after their valid baptism, if failing once in charity, may not achieve the perfect contrition which allows forgiveness of sins without access to sacramental Confession. Catholics are too at risk, however can be certain of the strengthening of the Holy Mysteries.

So it is a grave risk.

 

[mick321]

Many Protestants currently teach heresies that have been anathematized from the time of the Apostles. They have no standardization of doctrine among themselves. What makes them Protestant is their rejection of the Sacraments, the Priesthood, the Saints, Apostolic Succession and the history of the Christian Faith.

Anyone who would direct an unsuspecting soul toward Protestantism, is by definition, a Protestant himself. May God have mercy on his soul. No guarantee though.

 

[vppoole]

Well, you have to preach ‘something’ right? I am saying that ‘something’ would be more attractive in the form of Protestantism.

So when someone says, I really like your attitude in life, and what must I do to follow your faith, you can say be a Protestant and here are the set of things you must adhere to. With such a minimal set of requirements, I can’t see them refuse. Think of how many Christians with issues on same sex marriage etc that you can convert by simply suggesting them to join a Lutheran parish.

We would have a fully Christian world in no time.

It would be one thing if Protestantism did not reject fundamental elements of the faith or add in extra doctrines (like sola scriptura); but then it wouldn’t be Protestant anymore.

The ‘something’ that you have to preach is the Gospel.

But…
“If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” - Saint Augustine

So, for a Catholic to promote anything less than the complete faith is to put something ahead of Christ in one’s priorities. Christ did not prefer popularity to truth (see John 6); why should we?

 

[ballin]

Jesus knew full well that people wouldn’t listen to His teachings. Sure enough they didn’t, and still don’t. Didn’t stop Him trying to teach, for the sake of those who WOULD listen.

See, let’s say a stranger comes to you and asks you the nearest way to town x. Is it really more likely that they will stumble across the right road unaided by you, or that they will ask but refuse to listen to your answer?

Well, the goal in the end is salvation, is it not? If salvation is possible by simply being Protestant, why put any more burden on them? Why not simply stand back and allow them to reach salvation through the easier method?

In short, why put effort to convince non-Christians to become Catholic when we don’t even put the same effort with our separated brethren and according to some, there even no need for such effort?

 

[ballin]

Would you give someone a stone if they asked for bread?

But in terms of salvation, according to some, you are really not giving them a stone. Only an imperfect slice of bread

 

[mick321]

Well, the goal in the end is salvation, is it not? If salvation is possible by simply being Protestant, why put any more burden on them? Why not simply stand back and allow them to reach salvation through the easier method?

In short, why put effort to convince non-Christians to become Catholic when we don’t even put the same effort with our separated brethren and according to some, there even no need for such effort?

Many Protestants - as do many Muslims - currently teach heresies that have been anathematized from the time of the Apostles. They have no standardization of doctrine among themselves. What makes them Protestant is their rejection of the Sacraments, the Priesthood, the Saints, Apostolic Succession and the history of the Christian Faith.

Anyone who would direct an unsuspecting soul toward Protestantism, is by definition, a Protestant himself. May God have mercy on his soul. No guarantee though.

 

[ballin]

As one of those without a religion prior to becoming Catholic -
Absolutely not!

Protestants are our separated brethren and many are very fine Christians, but they are, none the less, most through no fault of their own, lacking in the complete Truth.

In particular, they do not have the Eucharist. To me, there is nothing in modifying the moral teachings to permit some things that are gravely immoral, thus making it more palatable, to replace the lack of the Eucharist.

Unless you eat His Body and drink His Blood, you have no life within you.

We cannot change the Teachings of Christ to make them more palatable. We are the ones who need to change, to repent and turn away from sin.

But according to some, what you say above is not necessary. We believe the Jews are saved too without eating the body of Christ. The church does in-fact believe that it is not necessary to participate in the Eucharist to be saved according to many even on this forum.

So I am not sure the Eucharist is even a problem in this issue, at least from what I have seen written on this forum.

Yes, we should be active in calling all people to the Church founded by Christ Jesus, whether they are Protestant, Hindu or nothing.

I assume you are not among the majority here then. From what I understand, we don’t need to try and convert/call them to be Catholic anymore. They just need to be GOOD in what they are currently in. Perhaps the leaders of each community can talk about coming together in the future but there is really no burning need. At least that is what I understand from posts here, am I wrong?

We do not KNOW that they are not in any risk of losing salvation. We know what Jesus taught us. We cannot go through the Teachings of the Church and say, “This one is necessary, but this other one, well, maybe we can compromise here.”

So what exactly does the church teach on this in our times?

We hope and pray for their salvation, through their Trinitarian Baptism and their faith, but without the Eucharist and the rest of the Sacraments, we must rely on the Mercy of God.

So if you are a Catholic, you don’t rely on the mercy of God?

It is not ‘converting’ if we do not have to change. A denomination may claim that same-sex unions are licit, but that does not make it so with God. Watering down the requirements so people do not have to change, to repent, does not help their eternal salvation - and that is our ultimate goal - that all may enjoy eternity with God in Heaven. Altering the Truth does not advance that cause.

So are the large amount of Lutherans who have embraced same sex marriage in urgent need of conversion by the Church or not? From answers on this forum, it seems to be that we should not convert them since they are just our brethren. Which is it?

 

[ballin]

Many Protestants - as do many Muslims - currently teach heresies that have been anathematized from the time of the Apostles. They have no standardization of doctrine among themselves. What makes them Protestant is their rejection of the Sacraments, the Priesthood, the Saints, Apostolic Succession and the history of the Christian Faith.

Anyone who would direct an unsuspecting soul toward Protestantism, is by definition, a Protestant himself. May God have mercy on his soul. No guarantee though.

But if there is no urgent need to convert Protestants since they are simply our separated brethren, doesn’t that mean that salvation is just as possible for them too? So why should we care too much about whether its “entirely accurate” when salvation is still there?

 

[Rich_C]

But if we must not communicate the full truth to fellow Protestants, should we be communicating the full truth to anyone else?

Ballin, where are you getting this idea? It’s false. The Church teaches that God wants every person to enter the Church, and to the extent that we’re giving the opportunity, we ought to help people find the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church.

 

[mick321]

But if there is no urgent need to convert Protestants since they are simply our separated brethren, doesn’t that mean that salvation is just as possible for them too? So why should we care too much about whether its “entirely accurate” when salvation is still there?

Protestants are NOT simply separated brethren. They teach heresy to the detriment to otherwise faithful Christians.

If you can get them to agree with the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed, you have done them a favor. Otherwise, you are encouraging the on-going corruption of the Christian Faith.

Christ does not seek the death of the sinner in his sin, but that the sinner turn from his wickedness and live.

It is far better for a Christian to keep his peace than to make things worse.

 

[Rich_C]

But if there is no urgent need to convert Protestants since they are simply our separated brethren, doesn’t that mean that salvation is just as possible for them too? So why should we care too much about whether its “entirely accurate” when salvation is still there?

Ballin, to knowingly advocate error is a sin.

Protestantism only has baptism. After that, a Protestant that commits a mortal sin (and most of their pastors will not condemn lots of mortal sins because they’re in error) has no sacrament of penance to go to, and no hope of salvation except perfect contrition, which is very difficult to achieve.

Also, they go through the minefield of modern life without the graces of Holy Communion and without accessing the treasury of merits of the saints, making it that much harder to live virtuously and avoid mortal sin (see above).

It’s hard enough to be saved as a Catholic. It’s much harder as a Protestant. I don’t see how you’d be doing anyone a favor.

 

[ballin]

Ballin, where are you getting this idea? It’s false. The Church teaches that God wants every person to enter the Church, and to the extent that we’re giving the opportunity, we ought to help people find the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church.

But isn’t the current view of the church that we do not need to engage in any conversion work directed at Protestants? I thought the understanding was that since they are merely separated brethren, it is not an urgent need to try and get them to convert and they can be saved without the other sacraments as well?

 

[ballin]

Ballin, to knowingly advocate error is a sin.

Protestantism only has baptism. After that, a Protestant that commits a mortal sin (and most of their pastors will not condemn lots of mortal sins because they’re in error) has no sacrament of penance to go to, and no hope of salvation except perfect contrition, which is very difficult to achieve.

Also, they go through the minefield of modern life without the graces of Holy Communion and without accessing the treasury of merits of the saints, making it that much harder to live virtuously and avoid mortal sin (see above).

It’s hard enough to be saved as a Catholic. It’s much harder as a Protestant. I don’t see how you’d be doing anyone a favor.

But isn’t it actually much easier as a Protestant?

Because if Protestants can be saved by simply being good Protestants, if they have a minimal set of doctrine, it is easier to adhere to than lets say the whole body of doctrine of the Catholic Church?

And if the end goal is salvation, we really wouldn’t be leading anyone astray since by becoming Protestant, they can be saved through the baptism and graces received as a Protestant.

 

[ConstantineTG]

well, lets think about it this way. When Apostles went and “preached”, and the ones who heard them said, “we are going to go become Jews now after hearing what you had to say”, should they clarify or just tell themselves that is where God called them to go?

Read the parable of the sower. Not everyone who is preached to is good soil for the Kingdom of God to take root in.