Might Some Protestants Reject Catholicism Because They Feel It Is Too 'Easy'?

[Peter_J]

thread title:

Might Some Protestants Reject Catholicism Because They Feel It Is Too ‘Easy’?

I think the answer to “Might Some People Reject _____________ Because They Feel It Is Too ‘Easy’?” will be “Yes” regardless of whether you fill in the blank with “Catholic”, “Orthodox”, “Lutheran”, “Anglican”, “Methodist”, “Prebyterian”, “Baptist”, “Pentecostal”, or even “Nondenominational”.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I think the answer to “Might Some People Reject _____________ Because They Feel It Is Too ‘Easy’?” will be “Yes” regardless of whether you fill in the blank with “Catholic”, “Orthodox”, “Lutheran”, “Anglican”, “Methodist”, “Prebyterian”, “Baptist”, “Pentecostal”, or even “Nondenominational”.

Interesting. Because it has been my experience that people will reject something because it is too hard. Path of least resistance and all …

 

[dzheremi]

I would think that the idea that some Church is too lax (I think this is a better way to put this objection than to say “easy”) is more likely to come those from within it than those outside of it. This could be said to be an impetus behind some traditionalist movements within Catholicism, but I don’t see how any life-long Protestant could reasonably believe that the Church, which they have never been a part of, is too easy. It’s more likely that they just don’t agree with any one or several points of dogma and are unwilling to accept Catholic explanations of them.

Then again, growing up as a Presbyterian I was never given any sort of idea about Catholicism other than that it was “weird” (because of all the “rituals”) and that it must be sad to be a Catholic woman since they can’t use birth control.

 

[kalt]

The Protestants I talk to reject the Church because of the "rules’. They know that as a Catholic, accepting the Church’s teachings is not optional. In their own churches, they feel more free to accept or reject everything that isn’t one of the “basics” of faith. (That Jesus is our Lord and Savior) They balk at the specifics about the Catholic faith.

In addition, they don’t like being told how to live when it comes to birth control, abortion, sex and marriage, stem cell research etc. Basically, they don’t like the Church’s making statements on certain moral issues, and they wouldn’t choose to become Catholic.

I get the impression that the teaching on moral issues is a bigger block to their conversion than other issues are (intercessory prayer, celibate priests, etc.)

I know other Protestants who object to drinking alcohol, and so think that the Church is wrong on that issue. These people have no problem with divorce, though.

I think that people have certain hot button issues, and they find a faith the reflects their own values. Truth becomes necessarily maleable, and it (truth) reflects their own opinion.

So, one person will balk at the CC, because She teaches that divorce is not permissible and that birth control and IVF is sinful. That person values freedom to decide for himself what is moral, and feels no compulsion to join a faith that has definitive teachings on these matters.

Another person may have decided that alcohol in inherently evil, and that the CC is wrong to allow drinking at all. This person will find a church that reflects this value, because he needs a church that will support him in his belief that drinking any alcohol is evil. He doesn’t value the freedom to decide for himself that alcohol is evil. He’s looking for a faith that will tell him what he believes–that alcohol is evil.

So, one will say that the CC is too strict or repressive, and the other will say that the Church is too lax.

Either way, they’re looking for a faith that reflects their own values.

I think that choosing a religion in our time is more social/political than people realize. I’ve heard people give reasons for choosing a church that are pretty much the same reasons they’ve chosen to join a political party. (One of the commonest reasons for rejecting the CC is that they disagree with the hierarchical structure of the Church and prefer the more democratic structure of the Protestant churches.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Here are my opinionated comments fully based on peronsal anecdotal experience.

It seems to me that many protestants, and Catholics who go to protestantism, is that being a protestant is so much “easier.” By that I mean that all they have to do is make one statement and then they’re “free” to do as they please because, well, they were saved. So what difference does anything else make?

Being a Catholic is challenging. IMO, we’re being held to a higher standard of living. And by that I mean we’re called to being holy people. I have never heard of a protestant say that being Catholic was “easy.” I’ve always heard them say it was “too hard” and how can it be “from” Jesus when you have the possibility of losing your salvation? Another thing I’ve heard, “It’s really creepy that you eat your god.”

I dunno any one reason why any one person decides to be protestant, other than those who were born and grew up in that religion. Really, it could be any number of reasons. I know one woman who was born and raised Catholic, even confirmed! and she “converted” to this “christian” church. She was excited about her “baptism” and all that. I asked her why she likes this particular church so much. “They pay attention to me.” Well, there you go.

So anyway. IMO, it seems easier for protestants to attain salvation. I always figured this is probably the main reason they don’t convert to Catholicism. Other than the fact that they’re being erroneously taught that the Catholic Church is being run by Satan.

The only people who claim that Protestants are such because it is “easier” are Catholics and reverted Catholics. I can’t think of a single ex-RCC here who has ever said they left Catholicism because it was too hard. There is nothing hard about it, nothing at all. At least for me. I will admit that for some there may be. But making universal claims is generally unwise.

I left the RCC because of doctrinal differences, but for it to be “easier” for me to be Episcopalian, I would have to be a gay woman, pregnant and desiring an abortion because I couldn’t use contraception, wanting to marry my gay lover which at the same time wanting to be ordained as a priest. I am none of the above. So it was not "hard’ being Catholic,I simply thought and continue to find it wrong on these issues.

It is arrogant to claim that RC’s are somehow called to a holier state of living. Hogwash. We are all called to live in Christ and to meet our brothers and sisters as Christ would have us. WE ARE ALL called this.

You have clearly compressed into one, all of Protestantism and that is silly of course. Your ideas are perhaps somewhat true for some denominations, but for most probably not true at all. Your idea that we say some magic word and we can go on as we wish is strange, and frankly, I haven’t a clue what you are talking about here.

 

[GodIsGracious]

It is arrogant to claim that RC’s are somehow called to a holier state of living. Hogwash. We are all called to live in Christ and to meet our brothers and sisters as Christ would have us. WE ARE ALL called this.

Yes, we are all called to be holy. However, I believe we achieve that in the Catholic church. If you think that is arrogant, so be it. Remember that I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. ONE. Not the Catholic church, and then maybe a few select protestant churches. ONE church.

You have clearly compressed into one, all of Protestantism and that is silly of course. Your ideas are perhaps somewhat true for some denominations, but for most probably not true at all. Your idea that we say some magic word and we can go on as we wish is strange, and frankly, I haven’t a clue what you are talking about here.

I can only talk about what I have experienced. Every. Single. Protestant. I have met has said, “Oh, all I needed to do was accept the lord Jesus Christ as my saviour and I’m saved!” with the implication that there was nothing more to do. That is the “magic word” (your term, not mine) that I am talking about.

Maybe those were the “born agains” as a subset of protestants. I dunno. But I HAVE HAD SOME PEOPLE tell me they left Catholicism because it was “too hard.” Those were THEIR reasons. Different from YOUR reasons.

Anyone who is not Catholic is a protestant. They are protesting the Catholic church, on whom Jesus Christ founded His Church. What individual protestants believe are the details and circumstances. I am Catholic. This is how I am going to believe, how I do believe. Which is why I make the statements I do. You, of course, will feel or believe differently. Which is why you will make the statements you do.

If you don’t like what I have to say, you can ignore me. There is nothing you have said to “correct” me.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Coming from a Protestant background (non-denominational/Evangelical, then Restorationist [Independent Christian Church], then Anglican/Episcopal), I sometimes think that some Protestants reject Catholicism because they might feel it is too ‘easy’.

After all, one hears certain Protestants talk about “making Christ the Lord of your life”, “giving one’s all for Christ”, etc. and that this is a requirement for ALL Believers. For the extreme examples, look at groups like the Mennonites or the Church of Christ.

As a Catholic, it seems that Salvation, at its heart is about following fairly simple rules (not saying always easy rules, I continually struggle with a pornography addiction and a bad case of Scruples), such as going to Mass every week, avoid mortal sin and, if you commit mortal sin, go to Confession.

The verses that some Protestants might apply to all Believers (i.e. the Beatitudes, the Rich Young Ruler, etc.) are viewed through a double-standard (I don’t mean this in a negative way); basically, there is the standard of obeying certain precepts that all Catholics must keep (i.e. obey the Ten Commandments, attend Mass weekly, etc.) and then there is the standard of perfection (i.e. following the evangelical counsels such as those tough passages in the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ words).

Thus, one could live a very ‘normal’ and worldly life (i.e. wealthy, popular, etc.), just staying out of mortal sin and going to Mass weekly, and still be in Heaven according to the Catholic Church; whereas, in some Protestant sects, that just wouldn’t cut it (in others, of course, all you have to do is have some vague notion of belief and you’re in).

Now, of course, Catholics could respond that one who does the barest minimum and pretty much just barely stays on the venial side of the venial-mortal sin divide might have quite a bit of time to spend in Purgatory, but they would get into Heaven…eventually.

It seems there is a certain dichotomy among some Protestant complaints against Catholicism:

1. The OSAS/Sola Fide types attack the Church for adding too much to the requirements for Salvation.
2. The Lordship Salvation (i.e. make Jesus the Lord of your life)/Holiness/‘Faith is a Relationship’ types attack the Church for making Salvation simply a matter of “following the rules” (and going to Confession if you seriously mess up).

Any comments from either Protestants or Catholic? Am I misunderstanding the Catholic concept of Salvation?

I think it’s the other way around. Catholicism is hard for non-Catholics simply because they don’t want to follow the strict moral and doctrinal truths we have to offer. What they don’t realize is on the way to becoming a Catholic is a sweet journey that you would enjoy and be in awe at what we have to offer. That everything the church has to offer comes from Scripture and Oral Tradition, and you would see how holy the church is because Jesus is holy.
Everything that is in the Catechism, Canon Law, and the Liturgy of the Mass comes from the bible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Coming from a Protestant background (non-denominational/Evangelical, then Restorationist [Independent Christian Church], then Anglican/Episcopal), I sometimes think that some Protestants reject Catholicism because they might feel it is too ‘easy’.

After all, one hears certain Protestants talk about “making Christ the Lord of your life”, “giving one’s all for Christ”, etc. and that this is a requirement for ALL Believers. For the extreme examples, look at groups like the Mennonites or the Church of Christ.

As a Catholic, it seems that Salvation, at its heart is about following fairly simple rules (not saying always easy rules, I continually struggle with a pornography addiction and a bad case of Scruples), such as going to Mass every week, avoid mortal sin and, if you commit mortal sin, go to Confession.

The verses that some Protestants might apply to all Believers (i.e. the Beatitudes, the Rich Young Ruler, etc.) are viewed through a double-standard (I don’t mean this in a negative way); basically, there is the standard of obeying certain precepts that all Catholics must keep (i.e. obey the Ten Commandments, attend Mass weekly, etc.) and then there is the standard of perfection (i.e. following the evangelical counsels such as those tough passages in the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ words).

Thus, one could live a very ‘normal’ and worldly life (i.e. wealthy, popular, etc.), just staying out of mortal sin and going to Mass weekly, and still be in Heaven according to the Catholic Church; whereas, in some Protestant sects, that just wouldn’t cut it (in others, of course, all you have to do is have some vague notion of belief and you’re in).

Now, of course, Catholics could respond that one who does the barest minimum and pretty much just barely stays on the venial side of the venial-mortal sin divide might have quite a bit of time to spend in Purgatory, but they would get into Heaven…eventually.

Eek ! That is close to the idea that one is a “good Catholic” as long as one toddles along to Confession, & has no mortal sins to confess. That kind of “minimalism” is not the Christian life - if that’s the CL, give me Anglicanism any time. The Catholic response you mention would be theologically correct - but so beside the point…!​

Actually, it is not correct,not at bottom - it trivialises sin horribly, which is bad enough. One of the many great things the CC owes to Vatican II is renewed, & completely explicit, emphasis on the universality of the call to holiness. V2 would be praiseworthy if that were the only good thing the Church owes to it; there are others too Before V2, the call to holiness was not emphasised enough, and it was not presented in a systematic way; & it was much easier to get away with the idea that holiness was only for “religious professionals”; that housewives, accountants, nurses, farmers, politicians, mechanics, students, book-binders needn’t bother with it. Luther, to his honour, did not make the mistake of thinking that only an elite among Christians need bother with Christian holiness.

It seems there is a certain dichotomy among some Protestant complaints against Catholicism:

1. The OSAS/Sola Fide types attack the Church for adding too much to the requirements for Salvation.
2. The Lordship Salvation (i.e. make Jesus the Lord of your life)/Holiness/‘Faith is a Relationship’ types attack the Church for making Salvation simply a matter of “following the rules” (and going to Confession if you seriously mess up).

Legalism seems to be hundred-headed - that is one form in which it crops up.​

Any comments from either Protestants or Catholic? Am I misunderstanding the Catholic concept of Salvation?

Salvation is not a thing; not, or not primarily, a gift - Salvation is a Person. Shalom, the word glossed as “salvation”, is “spaciousness” - St.Paul has a lot to say about being “in Christ”; St. John’s presentation of “indwelling” (see John 14-17, for example, complements it. RC theology (as to the others ) has been strongly personalist rather than propositional for about 50 or so years The constant necessity of conversion to Christ needs emphasising, as the CC does (not that this is always given much prominence). Catholicism can be lived out at a very superficial & unevangelical level, as a purely external religion; it need not & ought not, but it is capable of this; not this makes doing so any better. Or it can be lived in a great variety of much healthier ways - it would be pointless & impertinent to say much more, because how it is interiorised & manifested in an immense variety of ways. All religions don’t lead to God. All ways of being Catholic don’t lead to God. But all ways by which God draws people to Himself do lead to God. “Star differs from star in glory” (Daniel 12) - the Saints reigning with Christ are as different, or more so; it is us unSaintly saints, who belong to Him but don’t manifest His Life, who are “samey” - & the damned who are dead outside Christ are the least varied & lively of all. “The King’s daughter is all glorious within” (Psa. 45) the verse has often been applied to the Church, & it’s a reminder that salvation is far richer than “minimalism”, “squeezing into heaven, if only just”, allows for. If Christ is our Salvation, it cannot be the threadbare - mangy ? - thing minimalism makes of it.​

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t know if my problem is with an ordained priesthood, after all my wife and I were married in the Lutheran Church she grew up in.My problem with the Catholic Church is the laity is not in the priesthood of Melchizedek and thats not what Peter said in I Peter 2:9-10. At least this is what I was told by a Catholic on another thread. You said the magic word,“The Priesthood of believers”.

All of the baptized in the Catholic Church are anointed Priest, Prophet and King with the oil of chrism shortly after they are baptized.

We don’t all share in the ministerial priesthood, because this is a calling that comes from God to only a few specific men. The rest of us are called to other vocations, which are equally important - father, mother, prayer warrior, etc. - which support the ministerial priesthood, as it also supports them. We could not have a Church that was made up entirely of priests; otherwise, to whom would they minister, and who would support them financially?

The world needs mothers and fathers, and artists, and workers, and prayer warriors, as well. And the priests also need mothers and fathers, and artists, and prayer warriors, and workers, too. We all need each other. That’s what St. Paul was talking about, in I Corinthians 12.

 

[Peter_J]

I think the answer to “Might Some People Reject _____________ Because They Feel It Is Too ‘Easy’?” will be “Yes” regardless of whether you fill in the blank with “Catholic”, “Orthodox”, “Lutheran”, “Anglican”, “Methodist”, “Prebyterian”, “Baptist”, “Pentecostal”, or even “Nondenominational”.

Oh I agree: more people reject something because it is too hard. But the way the thread-title is phrased is whether "some … reject … ". That’s also how I phrased my question.

 

[spbill]

The only people who claim that Protestants are such because it is “easier” are Catholics and reverted Catholics. I can’t think of a single ex-RCC here who has ever said they left Catholicism because it was too hard. There is nothing hard about it, nothing at all. At least for me. I will admit that for some there may be. But making universal claims is generally unwise.

I left the RCC because of doctrinal differences, but for it to be “easier” for me to be Episcopalian, I would have to be a gay woman, pregnant and desiring an abortion because I couldn’t use contraception, wanting to marry my gay lover which at the same time wanting to be ordained as a priest. I am none of the above. So it was not "hard’ being Catholic,I simply thought and continue to find it wrong on these issues.

It is arrogant to claim that RC’s are somehow called to a holier state of living. Hogwash. We are all called to live in Christ and to meet our brothers and sisters as Christ would have us. WE ARE ALL called this.

You have clearly compressed into one, all of Protestantism and that is silly of course. Your ideas are perhaps somewhat true for some denominations, but for most probably not true at all. Your idea that we say some magic word and we can go on as we wish is strange, and frankly, I haven’t a clue what you are talking about here.

This is really the head of the nail. I am married to a Catholic and go to the Catholic church most every week. There are many differences between all of the different physical churches, and especially how many of their “members” practice their “faith”. Although doctrines (such as predestination and OSAS) are interest and value, most denomination hold fast to a common Apostles or Nicene creed. If we truly seek Christ and his truth we will be brought closer together. Are Catholics called to bear a different cross than protestants? Remember his burden is light.

We are all called to live in Christ and to meet our brothers and sisters as Christ would have us. WE ARE ALL called this.

In the Catholic church they pray each week to “Look not on the sins of the people” … “but to the faith of the Church”. We need to examine ourselves in light of this.

 

[nsper7]

This is really the head of the nail. I am married to a Catholic and go to the Catholic church most every week. There are many differences between all of the different physical churches, and especially how many of their “members” practice their “faith”. Although doctrines (such as predestination and OSAS) are interest and value, most denomination hold fast to a common Apostles or Nicene creed. If we truly seek Christ and his truth we will be brought closer together. Are Catholics called to bear a different cross than protestants? Remember his burden is light.

We are all called to live in Christ and to meet our brothers and sisters as Christ would have us. WE ARE ALL called this.

In the Catholic church they pray each week to “Look not on the sins of the people” … “but to the faith of the Church”. We need to examine ourselves in light of this.

It is not so much a question of Protestants or Catholics bearing different crosses, it comes down to the question of what crosses are we required to bear in order to be Saved and what crosses we can choose to bear in order to be ‘perfected’.

Remember that the Apostles/Nicene Creed do not really address what is necessary for Salvation (all the Apostles Creed states is that we believe in the forgiveness of sins and the Nicene Creed states that we recognize one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins).

Eek ! That is close to the idea that one is a “good Catholic” as long as one toddles along to Confession, & has no mortal sins to confess. That kind of “minimalism” is not the Christian life - if that’s the CL, give me Anglicanism any time. The Catholic response you mention would be theologically correct - but so beside the point…!​

Actually, it is not correct,not at bottom - it trivialises sin horribly, which is bad enough. One of the many great things the CC owes to Vatican II is renewed, & completely explicit, emphasis on the universality of the call to holiness. V2 would be praiseworthy if that were the only good thing the Church owes to it; there are others too Before V2, the call to holiness was not emphasised enough, and it was not presented in a systematic way; & it was much easier to get away with the idea that holiness was only for “religious professionals”; that housewives, accountants, nurses, farmers, politicians, mechanics, students, book-binders needn’t bother with it. Luther, to his honour, did not make the mistake of thinking that only an elite among Christians need bother with Christian holiness.

Well, I don’t think any Catholic leader (including myself if/when I become a Priest) would say that it is admirable or that it pleases God to take the path of “minimalism”. In terms of being Saved (i.e. being allowed entry into Heaven, either directly or through Purgatory), the person who goes to Confession with no mortal sins on their conscience IS Saved according to Catholic doctrine.

In terms of holiness, what exactly do you mean by “holiness”? The difference between “religious professionals” and the laity is that “religious professionals” (I assume you mean Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Consecrated persons) are under vows, usually those vows are related to the evangelical counsels (chastity, poverty and obedience). Thus, for the person under such vows, the evangelical counsels may become a requirement for that persons life–it depends on what vows they took. It should be noted that NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO TAKE VOWS. In other words, no one has to be a Priest, Brother, Sister, etc.

For a lay Catholic who is not under any vows, then the evangelical counsels are optional for them. All such a person (layperson not under vows) is required to do in order to be Saved is obey the precepts of the Church (which amounts to not committing mortal sin).

BTW- how do you define a “good Catholic”?

 

[spbill]

It is not so much a question of Protestants or Catholics bearing different crosses, it comes down to the question of what crosses are we required to bear in order to be Saved and what crosses we can choose to bear in order to be ‘perfected’.

Remember that the Apostles/Nicene Creed do not really address what is necessary for Salvation (all the Apostles Creed states is that we believe in the forgiveness of sins and the Nicene Creed states that we recognize one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins).

I pray that all would pick up their cross whatever Christian church they attend. After perusing the threads hear I get a better feeling for many of the differences between my walk to maturity and the Catholic approach. I believe that I continue to mature by prayer, fellowship, and being in God’s word. My church as well as most Protestants I know don’t elaborate as much on subjects such as sexual relations/contraception (probably since there is little explicit reference to this in the Bible). I don’t what to get in a debate about these differences, but I would like to comment on the path to maturity. Does the Catholic approach to these items become a stumbling block to many? Causing some to turn away, and others to be “cafeteria” Catholics? If people don’t gain maturity, how can they be expected to get past going to absolution or rationalizing away these issues? The problem I see, which seems across all traditional churches, is how to draw people away from a worldly focus and into a Christ focus.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I don’t think being Christian is easy at all - regardless of what denomination or communion one belongs to. Taking up the cross and following Christ is a sacrifice.

It is also a blessing.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, we are all called to be holy. However, I believe we achieve that in the Catholic church. If you think that is arrogant, so be it. Remember that I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. ONE. Not the Catholic church, and then maybe a few select protestant churches. ONE church.

You “achieve” it in the RCC? How by simply being a member? What I suggest is that every Christian is called to be holy. Do you somehow disagree with that? I too believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church and that there is one. You are quite right, it is not the RCC and some selected Protestant churches, it is all of christendom.

I can only talk about what I have experienced. Every. Single. Protestant. I have met has said, “Oh, all I needed to do was accept the lord Jesus Christ as my saviour and I’m saved!” with the implication that there was nothing more to do. That is the “magic word” (your term, not mine) that I am talking about.

Maybe those were the “born agains” as a subset of protestants. I dunno. But I HAVE HAD SOME PEOPLE tell me they left Catholicism because it was “too hard.” Those were THEIR reasons. Different from YOUR reasons.

Anyone who is not Catholic is a protestant. They are protesting the Catholic church, on whom Jesus Christ founded His Church. What individual protestants believe are the details and circumstances. I am Catholic. This is how I am going to believe, how I do believe. Which is why I make the statements I do. You, of course, will feel or believe differently. Which is why you will make the statements you do.

If you don’t like what I have to say, you can ignore me. There is nothing you have said to “correct” me.

Well if every single Protestant (and it is capitalized by the way) says that, then you have indeed met only a very select subsection. Now you know better. Many Protestants, if not most don’t agree that simply saying “I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior” is a guarantee of salvation. Such would be presumptuous at best.

I won’t argue that you claim to have met Protestants who thought Roman Catholicism too hard. How it is, I am still at a loss to understand. Some here apparently think that it is hard when you have to follow a doctrine that you believe is wrong in your heart. I would suggest that is not hard, it is down right immoral. But that is my opinion.

You may of course believe that everyone not a Roman Catholic is somehow a Protestant but of course many in the Orthodox faith, and other Catholic faiths, to say nothing of the Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, would differ with you.

I disagree of course that Jesus started the RCC. And frankly something that happened in excess of 500 years ago, is hardly a good nail to pin “protesters” on today.

I thought forums were to share ideas and to agree and disagree and give reasons. You are quite wrong that I don’t like your ideas and may wish to ignore you. I cannot learn from anyone whom I ignore. I’ve found that only necessary in one case so far. Surely we can disagree without being closed minded?

I don’t know why you assume I set out to correct you. That is a strange way of looking at a forum response. Blessings.

 

[jmcrae]

You “achieve” it in the RCC? How by simply being a member?

In a sense, yes, because the practice of the Catholic faith is a very purifying experience - you can’t go to Confession on a regular basis, consciously avoid grave sin in your daily life, fast on the days appointed, pray and meditate daily, do penance every Friday, and go to Mass every Sunday, without inevitably becoming a better, happier, more disciplined human being.

In most forms of Protestantism, these things are considered “optional,” if they are even available or mentioned at all, so yes, the opportunity to grow in holiness is, in fact, more available, or at least more “in your face” in the Catholic Church than elsewhere.

 

[racing59]

You “achieve” it in the RCC? How by simply being a member? What I suggest is that every Christian is called to be holy. Do you somehow disagree with that? I too believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church and that there is one. You are quite right, it is not the RCC and some selected Protestant churches, it is all of christendom.

Well if every single Protestant (and it is capitalized by the way) says that, then you have indeed met only a very select subsection. Now you know better. Many Protestants, if not most don’t agree that simply saying “I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior” is a guarantee of salvation. Such would be presumptuous at best.

I won’t argue that you claim to have met Protestants who thought Roman Catholicism too hard. How it is, I am still at a loss to understand. Some here apparently think that it is hard when you have to follow a doctrine that you believe is wrong in your heart. I would suggest that is not hard, it is down right immoral. But that is my opinion.

You may of course believe that everyone not a Roman Catholic is somehow a Protestant but of course many in the Orthodox faith, and other Catholic faiths, to say nothing of the Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, would differ with you.

I disagree of course that Jesus started the RCC. And frankly something that happened in excess of 500 years ago, is hardly a good nail to pin “protesters” on today.

I thought forums were to share ideas and to agree and disagree and give reasons. You are quite wrong that I don’t like your ideas and may wish to ignore you. I cannot learn from anyone whom I ignore. I’ve found that only necessary in one case so far. Surely we can disagree without being closed minded?

I don’t know why you assume I set out to correct you. That is a strange way of looking at a forum response. Blessings.

Hi Spirit, I’m in the same place you are. I agree with your post.I believe in One, Holy,Catholic,Apostolic, I’m just not convinced it is ONLY RCC.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Oh I agree: more people reject something because it is too hard. But the way the thread-title is phrased is whether "some … reject … ". That’s also how I phrased my question.

See I see the OP’s question as a false one in the first place. It’s been used here a lot. Not too long ago, someone asked all those who had left the RCC why they had done so. Many of us replied. Yet many of the Catholics rejected everything we said, and continued to spout that we were too lazy or it was too hard to be RC. I find this just a convenient way of trying to look down on others.

Polling results also suggest that this is not true. The majority of those who left the RCC according to Pew, left for doctrinal reasons–the did not accept certain teachings. Those who left Protestant denominations for other Protestant denominations did so for more personal reasons, --to keep all the family in the same faith, convenience of church location, services offered, etc. In a word not doctrine.

I would think that nobody much things that any church is much harder than any other. Going to church at all may be hard, but that would be the break as I see it. Once committed to being a regular church goer, nothing much is hard. I know a good number of ex-RC’s and when I ask them why they left, it is universally over doctrine, except in one case, who said she became RC only because of her husband, and when he died, she reverted back to the church she was raised in because she had never been happy about leaving.

It can categorically say that I have never heard anyone claim they left any church because it was “hard”. I don’t even know what that means. To accept what is taught when mostly it doesn’t impact you personally is not hard. I think staying under those circumstances and mouthing teachings you don’t believe in is immoral frankly. I don’t think we can hide behind a church as our defense to what we believe. If you believe it, then fine, if you don’t and stay out of obedience, you are, in my opinion being utterly untrue to your own divine nature given in the Spirit.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi Spirit, I’m in the same place you are. I agree with your post.I believe in One, Holy,Catholic,Apostolic, I’m just not convinced it is ONLY RCC.

It actually isn’t “only” the RCC (the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church) - it is the whole Catholic Church - all who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, as St. Ignatius told us, already way back in 110 AD.

 

[GodIsGracious]

It actually isn’t “only” the RCC (the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church) - it is the whole Catholic Church - all who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, as St. Ignatius told us, already way back in 110 AD.

That’s what I was trying to explain to him in another thread.

I think people tend to think that “Catholic Church” means “Roman Catholic.” It is not. It is those in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Protestant denominations are not.