My #1 reason for not converting...

[JohnnyReb]

peter kreeft has said that protestants need to be more catholic and catholics need to be more protestant. his meaning was that protestants need to experience the miracle of the mass, the authority of the magisterium, and the connection to history the way catholics do. catholics need to experience the passion, the commitment, and the connection to God that protestants seem to have. of course both have some of each within them, but i think he has a valid point.

Interesting point. We have discussed this alot in RICA and how for years, many in the church hid behind the fact that they were Catholic, allowing a gap between what they professed and the way they lived their lives.

When I was a Protestant, I felt disconnected from church history, issues with church authority that have been healed as I prepare to enter the Catholic church.

I see the Catholic church moving in a direction where people give more committment and live their faith with more passion.

 

[porthos11]

Yes, that!!!

Pretty sad, but ya, so far in my life journey, Protestants as a group are light years ahead of Catholics in terms of their relationship with God. Catholics know about God. Protestants know God. Measured as a group, not by the individual.

I sorely disagree. I think the Catholic Church is the one light years ahead, by the plain fact that we become one with him in Holy Communion. Protestants know God too, but only in an incomplete way in his Word. We know him in both Word and Sacrament. If anything it is we who possess the fullest knowledge of God.

The sad thing is, many Catholics never bothered to appreciate this. But the Church does, and always has, for two thousand years.

 

[Jamie_Patton]

Here is what I see,

I am a member of an Evangelical Non-Denom Protestant Church. Alot of Protestants see being “on fire for God” as outward emotions. People jumping up and dancing during the contemporary worship music, hands raised up, shouting out loud with praises and prayer, and so on. We have had guest speakers who have spoke in tounges and claimed to be “a prophet of the nations”. People have claimed to be healed and there are stories f healings that do circulate around the church.

First we can’t say someone is’nt “on fire for God” because of how they exspress themselves. Many people don’t experiance certain gifts of the spirit and that does’nt mean they are’nt “on fire” Christians. People are people and exspress there individual spirituality in many different ways.

One can’t compare a practicing Protestant to a non-practicing Catholic, which I see happen all the time. What does it mean to “give your life to God”? A Catholic can give his/her life to God and just show it in a different way. Both Catholics and Protestants can dedicate their lives to God by being obedient, living life as best as they can according to his will, and be plugged into Church community and still outwardly look different.

Speaking in tounges can be a confusing issue. Tounges can incourage the individual but easily confuse a gathering. Is there anyone to interpret the dialect? No, then I would question it. Yes, then maybe it is genuine. With no one to interpret it is not helpful or incouraging at all ecspecially to new or non-believers. Speaking in tounges should not be a sign of being “on fire for God”. Many people claim to speak in tounges and I take it with a grain of salt. That does’nt mean it can’t happen but I look at the situation inwhich it happens and compare to scripture, and most of the time it’s questionable.

Claiming to be a prophet is a pretty bold statement. Are they getting direct revelation from God? And about what? Many Protestants claim to be prophets with direct revelation from God (with all types of issues) and still deny the Pope and his infallability when teaching. To me that is hypocritical. I am always cautious when I here someone claim to be a prophet.

When you look at each Protestant Denomination and trace their history back to their beginings you always stop with a man and his own ideas, beliefs and interpretations. When you do the same with the Catholic Church you trace the history back thousands of years earlier and it stops at Jesus and his Apostles. Does’nt that tell you something. Look at all the different denominations with differing beliefs and each would claim to be Holy Spirit lead. Does’nt that seem odd. No doubt non-Catholics can be real God honoring Christians with God working through them in mighty ways. But when you study the Catholic Church with an un-bias open heart it is hard to deny her truth. The Apostles taught about the truth of Jesus and his teachings and teachings/issues relevent to the Church at the time. The Catholic Church continues in this tradition today. God gave the Apostles that authority and for them to hand it down, which leads all the up to the present day. God wants us to be united as one body and the Catholic Church is that body of Christ. Other denominations can be real exspressions of Christianity but the Catholic Church is the true exspession. No Church(religious denomination) is perfect due to our human free will but which one has less imperfections, The Catholic Church.

Study Catholicism un-biasly and with a open heart and you soon with see it’s truth. This is why I will one day be Catholic.

That’s just how I see it. God bless you and all those in this forum.

Jamie

Hi,

I know title is provoking. But seriously, I’m not looking for a fight.

There are many things in Catholicism that I like, and it seems to be the church that makes the most sense compared to others. Dogmas are well-defended and generally plausible.

However, I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God. I don’t talk about worship-song-i-love-you-jesus on fire, but REALLY on fire, giving their lives to the Lord, trusting in him. And I see God bless them, do miracles through them. I know several prophets and a few that speak in tongues, and some time ago, a miracle somewhat like the one with loaves and fish happened at a church I know.

If I looked solely at teachings and apologetics, I might as well be a Catholic, but when I look at these people, I can’t really believe that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, as it claims. I can’t believe that these people are not the church.

If these miracles are not due to God, who then? I can’t believe it’s the devil.

• CB

 

[JohnnyReb]

The sad thing is, many Catholics never bothered to appreciate this. But the Church does, and always has, for two thousand years.

That is the heart of the issue. Too many people have not let the fullness of faith effect their lives, when it should all the more. Coming into the church I can see how incomplete my Protestant faith was, but while I was a part of it, I was far more devoted to it that almost all Catholics I knew.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Here is what I see,

I am a member of an Evangelical Non-Denom Protestant Church. Alot of Protestants see being “on fire for God” as outward emotions. People jumping up and dancing during the contemporary worship music, hands raised up, shouting out loud with praises and prayer, and so on. We have had guest speakers who have spoke in tounges and claimed to be “a prophet of the nations”. People have claimed to be healed and there are stories f healings that do circulate around the church.

First we can’t say someone is’nt “on fire for God” because of how they exspress themselves. Many people don’t experiance certain gifts of the spirit and that does’nt mean they are’nt “on fire” Christians. People are people and exspress there individual spirituality in many different ways.

One can’t compare a practicing Protestant to a non-practicing Catholic, which I see happen all the time. What does it mean to “give your life to God”? A Catholic can give his/her life to God and just show it in a different way. Both Catholics and Protestants can dedicate their lives to God by being obedient, living life as best as they can according to his will, and be plugged into Church community and still outwardly look different.

Speaking in tounges can be a confusing issue. Tounges can incourage the individual but easily confuse a gathering. Is there anyone to interpret the dialect? No, then I would question it. Yes, then maybe it is genuine. With no one to interpret it is not helpful or incouraging at all ecspecially to new or non-believers. Speaking in tounges should not be a sign of being “on fire for God”. Many people claim to speak in tounges and I take it with a grain of salt. That does’nt mean it can’t happen but I look at the situation inwhich it happens and compare to scripture, and most of the time it’s questionable.

Claiming to be a prophet is a pretty bold statement. Are they getting direct revelation from God? And about what? Many Protestants claim to be prophets with direct revelation from God (with all types of issues) and still deny the Pope and his infallability when teaching. To me that is hypocritical. I am always cautious when I here someone claim to be a prophet.

When you look at each Protestant Denomination and trace their history back to their beginings you always stop with a man and his own ideas, beliefs and interpretations. When you do the same with the Catholic Church you trace the history back thousands of years earlier and it stops at Jesus and his Apostles. Does’nt that tell you something. Look at all the different denominations with differing beliefs and each would claim to be Holy Spirit lead. Does’nt that seem odd. No doubt non-Catholics can be real God honoring Christians with God working through them in mighty ways. But when you study the Catholic Church with an un-bias open heart it is hard to deny her truth. The Apostles taught about the truth of Jesus and his teachings and teachings/issues relevent to the Church at the time. The Catholic Church continues in this tradition today. God gave the Apostles that authority and for them to hand it down, which leads all the up to the present day. God wants us to be united as one body and the Catholic Church is that body of Christ. Other denominations can be real exspressions of Christianity but the Catholic Church is the true exspession. No Church(religious denomination) is perfect due to our human free will but which one has less imperfections, The Catholic Church.

Study Catholicism un-biasly and with a open heart and you soon with see it’s truth. This is why I will one day be Catholic.

That’s just how I see it. God bless you and all those in this forum.

Jamie

You are pretty accurate with what you say. You describe the Pentecostal tradition that I came out of perfectly. I never felt comfortable and often like my emotions were being manipulated to get some kind of response in most services.

I am far more devoted in the last few months going through RCIA than I have been in years, without the emotionalism.

The reason that many compare non practicing Catholics with protestants is that one often does not hear of non-practicing protestants, and for many, their exposure to Catholicism is only through the non-practicing Catholics they know, who at times act no differently than nonbelievers. This gives the impression that Protestants are more devoted to their faith

 

[MariaG]

peter kreeft has said that protestants need to be more catholic and catholics need to be more protestant. his meaning was that protestants need to experience the miracle of the mass, the authority of the magisterium, and the connection to history the way catholics do. catholics need to experience the passion, the commitment, and the connection to God that protestants seem to have. of course both have some of each within them, but i think he has a valid point.

I agree.

 

[MariaG]

Yes, that!!!

Pretty sad, but ya, so far in my life journey, Protestants as a group are light years ahead of Catholics in terms of their relationship with God. Catholics know about God. Protestants know God. Measured as a group, not by the individual.

I disagree.

There is a difference between saying Catholics need to develop more passion, committment and connection with God and to say that what Catholics only know about God.

Two very different things whether measuring by the group or the individual. The first implies Catholic need to devolop a DEEPER committment. The second implies they need to make one because, as a group, they don’t have one at all.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[Todd_Easton]

I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God.

This statement reminded me of Apollos in the Bible, an eloquent speaker, well-versed in Scripture, fervent in spirit, who taught accurately about Jesus but who nonetheless needed more accurate instruction in the way of God. (Act 18:24-28.)

 

[angelusm]

Hi,

I know title is provoking. But seriously, I’m not looking for a fight.

There are many things in Catholicism that I like, and it seems to be the church that makes the most sense compared to others. Dogmas are well-defended and generally plausible.

However, I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God. I don’t talk about worship-song-i-love-you-jesus on fire, but REALLY on fire, giving their lives to the Lord, trusting in him. And I see God bless them, do miracles through them. I know several prophets and a few that speak in tongues, and some time ago, a miracle somewhat like the one with loaves and fish happened at a church I know.

If I looked solely at teachings and apologetics, I might as well be a Catholic, but when I look at these people, I can’t really believe that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, as it claims. I can’t believe that these people are not the church.

If these miracles are not due to God, who then? I can’t believe it’s the devil.

• CB

In the Catholic Church there are not only healings, tongues, prophesying, etc., but also: Body and Blood of Jesus, apostolic succession, supermiracles - you wont’t find them in protestant denominations - like the one in Fatima (your protestant friends are afraid of truth and don’t want to know God’s message of Fatima and many others).
Ask your lutheran friends two questions: why did lutheran preachers participated in the gay parade in Stockholm?
If they believe in Sola Scriptura, do they, as charismatics, receive ONLY prophecies that are in the Bible?

Jesus said: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it,
I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you release on earth will be realeased in Heaven.”
Peter was the first pope, and the CC was the Church Jesus meant (If you don’t agree, tell us which one is the right one). Pope has the right to bind and release. Jesus definitely didn’t mean Mr. Hansen (Lutheran leader) to bind and release.
Protestants are a cut off branch. They are outside the only Church founded by Jesus and it’s risky to be outside. The gates of heaven are narrow and we should do our best to be perfect. There won’t be any perfection without the unity with the person appointed by Jesus to represent Him on earth.

 

[DebChris]

Hi,

I know title is provoking. But seriously, I’m not looking for a fight.

There are many things in Catholicism that I like, and it seems to be the church that makes the most sense compared to others. Dogmas are well-defended and generally plausible.

However, I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God. I don’t talk about worship-song-i-love-you-jesus on fire, but REALLY on fire, giving their lives to the Lord, trusting in him. And I see God bless them, do miracles through them. I know several prophets and a few that speak in tongues, and some time ago, a miracle somewhat like the one with loaves and fish happened at a church I know.

If I looked solely at teachings and apologetics, I might as well be a Catholic, but when I look at these people, I can’t really believe that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, as it claims. I can’t believe that these people are not the church.

If these miracles are not due to God, who then? I can’t believe it’s the devil.

• CB

I would not discount any of the events/miracles you have seen outside the Catholic Church. The Spirit blows where it will.
For St. Peter this realization came when he was directed to the house of Nicodemus, a gentile.
Catholics are steeped in the knowledge of God from birth. It takes an act of personal faith to allow this head knowledge to become something more, to become knowledge of the heart.
You mention in your post, the experience of Luthern Charismatics. Like Nicodemus, they have experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit at work in their lives. The general term used within Pentecostal communities is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This same experience is available within the structure of the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church that has the history leading back to the first apostles. This richness of doctrine and teaching is something I would never willing give up. For a Catholic, this Baptism of the Spirit, also referred to as the Infilling of the Holy Spirit, is not a new Sacrament.
For many Catholics, the gifts we received at Baptism and Confirmation remain unwrapped and unused. For a Catholic, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit means being open to the Holy Spirit and allowing this gifts to be released and used in service to God and for the upbuilding of the Church. They are about more than a personal relationship. At the same time they allow us to experience the awesome God whom the heavens cannot contain in a very personal manner within our hearts.
Many priests and bishops have undergone this experience. The renewed boldness of their preaching becames evident in the life of the parishes they lead.
As has been stated on earlier posts, it is not necessary to look outside the Catholic Church in order to experience the Holy Spirit at work in your life. To experience this new relationship within the Sacramental life of the Catholic Church goes beyond anything words can express.

 

[peary]

If you believe in the Bible, then you need to realize that the Catholic Church historically, is the only authentic (and biblically-based) church. It’s the same Church that was formed at Pentecost; it’s the same Church that Paul refers to in his epistles;It’s one and the same (read ACTS) yesterday, today and forever. Being “on fire” for the Lord is not confined to the Catholic Church per se as most protestant denominations are offered a life of grace by God due to their baptism and have the Church’s scriptures - the bible. The Catholic Church acknowledges this fact but also realizes that denominations have cut themselves off from the Body of Christ.
Even in the Old Testament, the Jews were at times “on fire” for Yahweh and at other times in their history were pretty much lethargic. The mainline Protestant churches were once “on fire” for Christ but are now finding themselves on the verge of extinction in certain areas of the world, most notably in the West. Jesus told us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. I believe Him.

 

[bengal_fan]

If you believe in the Bible, then you need to realize that the Catholic Church historically, is the only authentic (and biblically-based) church. It’s the same Church that was formed at Pentecost; it’s the same Church that Paul refers to in his epistles;It’s one and the same (read ACTS) yesterday, today and forever.

and i would disagree. it never says in the bible that the see of Peter is in Rome. in fact (and don’t think i am saying the tired old argument that Peter was never in Rome…) the only city we know for sure Peter was the founder of the church was Antioch (this of course is excluding Jerusalem, but very early on we see that James, the “brother” of the Lord was the bishop of Jerusalem. so by your “biblically based” logic, Antioch is the see of Peter. your argument doesn’t hold water without first acknowledging the authority of Rome. you can’t get the authority of Rome strictly using scripture.

 

[homewardbound]

Yes, that!!!

Pretty sad, but ya, so far in my life journey, Protestants as a group are light years ahead of Catholics in terms of their relationship with God. Catholics know about God. Protestants know God. Measured as a group, not by the individual.

I stopped reading here because I must disagree 100% with this. I was raised Protestant. Not quite sure what to label myself as yet since I am not confirmed Catholic. However, my MAIN reason for leaving Protestant teaching and embracing the Catholic faith is that they seem to know God far more than any on fire Protestant I have ever met. The Catholic’s way of prayer and worship is far more reverent and personal than I had ever experienced in my life as a Protestant. The Catholic faith has taught me how to really pray and feel God with me. I love the Catholic faith because IMO they are the only ones I have ever seen who truly worship God, where as Protestants focus on their desire to worship him. So for me, it has been the exact opposite.

 

[jmcrae]

I stopped reading here because I must disagree 100% with this. I was raised Protestant. Not quite sure what to label myself as yet since I am not confirmed Catholic.

Off topic, here, but if you are not yet in RCIA you are a Catholic Inquirer, and if you have started the RCIA process then you are either a Catechumen (if you weren’t baptized before) or a Catholic Candidate (if you have already been baptized). Just so you know.

However, my MAIN reason for leaving Protestant teaching and embracing the Catholic faith is that they seem to know God far more than any on fire Protestant I have ever met. The Catholic’s way of prayer and worship is far more reverent and personal than I had ever experienced in my life as a Protestant. The Catholic faith has taught me how to really pray and feel God with me. I love the Catholic faith because IMO they are the only ones I have ever seen who truly worship God, where as Protestants focus on their desire to worship him. So for me, it has been the exact opposite.

This is exactly what I have experienced, as well - the depth and richness of the Catholic Church makes everything else look shallow and not-quite-thought-out.

 

[Teflon93]

However, I know so many Christians that are not Catholics (mainly Lutheran Charismatics) yet are on fire for God. I don’t talk about worship-song-i-love-you-jesus on fire, but REALLY on fire, giving their lives to the Lord, trusting in him. And I see God bless them, do miracles through them. I know several prophets and a few that speak in tongues, and some time ago, a miracle somewhat like the one with loaves and fish happened at a church I know.

If I looked solely at teachings and apologetics, I might as well be a Catholic, but when I look at these people, I can’t really believe that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, as it claims. I can’t believe that these people are not the church.

• CB

You have some gaps in logic.

If what the Catholic Church claims is true is in fact true, you could not keep me out of her but through divine intervention.

You certainly could not keep me out of her because others have more entertaining services, or because they in outward appearance seem to enjoy them more.

Why not try a little experiment? Ask some of these folks who seem to be so on fire which denominations they have belonged to and when. Count how many were born to the denomination they are currently in.

It is easy to be on fire for a little while; hard to be on fire for the long haul.

People who tend to value being on fire over refraining from sin and striving quietly to please God throughout life tend to jump around to wherever they feel the fire.

I speak from experience; I did enough of that before crossing the Tiber myself.

 

[homewardbound]

Off topic, here, but if you are not yet in RCIA you are a Catholic Inquirer, and if you have started the RCIA process then you are either a Catechumen (if you weren’t baptized before) or a Catholic Candidate (if you have already been baptized). Just so you know.

Thank you. I guess I am an inquirer. I have attempted RCIA several times, but have not finished because of struggles going on in my life…not spiritually I want to be Catholic more than anything…just other things. I have been baptized. So anyway, thank you for answering that one for me

 

[Teflon93]

and i would disagree. it never says in the bible that the see of Peter is in Rome. in fact (and don’t think i am saying the tired old argument that Peter was never in Rome…) the only city we know for sure Peter was the founder of the church was Antioch (this of course is excluding Jerusalem, but very early on we see that James, the “brother” of the Lord was the bishop of Jerusalem. so by your “biblically based” logic, Antioch is the see of Peter. your argument doesn’t hold water without first acknowledging the authority of Rome. you can’t get the authority of Rome strictly using scripture.

If you listen to Christ, you can. The Church is where Peter and his successors are. It was at Antioch, it is at Rome. And because the Pope alone can claim to speak from the Throne of St Peter and to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and because Christ promised to abide with his Bride the Church until the end of time, it is the Catholic Church alone which can claim to be the Church Christ founded. Those who have split from her cannot, having lost the tie to Peter.

“Strictly using Scripture” is a complete dodge. Nothing in Protestantism beyond the Creed we all agree to comes “strictly from Scripture”; but rather from the interpration of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Latimer, and the rest.

You can’t explain 1,500 years away of actual Church teaching and doctrinal development by insisting on using Scripture only. The crimes of the Reformers, for example, were not justified in Scripture; Christ never commanded anyone to loot churches.

It is simply galling to me the blinders people will insist be put on when considering the historical claims of the Catholic Church, particularly given you would have no New Testament at all without her.

Since Christ’s love for Peter and the Church apparently will not penetrate despite being obvious (quick: name the apostle most often referenced in the NT. Name the apostle referenced first in every list of the apostles. Name the apostle who raised the dead. Etc. etc.), perhaps familiarizing yourself with history might help.

You can start by identifying which ECF(s) rebuked Peter for his effrontery in putting forth Mathias to replace Judas.

You can follow up by researching the reason for Constantine’s conversion, which happened several centuries too late to be recorded in Scripture but which has been the most important event in the Church since Pentecost and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

Or you can chant “Scripture alone…Scripture alone…Scripture alone…” while ignoring the difficult bits like John 6 or James 2 or any of the host of other chapters which somehow never seem to make it into non-Catholic sermons despite the amount of time they have to fill given the faithful don’t have to receive the consecrated body and blood of Christ each service.

To each their own, but we’ll all be judged in the end on the basis of the totality of Scripture, and how well we obey God’s commands.

Those who are not within full communion with the Church Christ founded begin with two strikes against them, lacking Magisterium and Tradition. Perhaps they require neither to be holy, and to pass through the narrow gate, but for me and mine, we’ll avail ourselves of the full complement of sacraments and two millennia of wisdom in following Christ to keep us on the path.

 

[peary]

and i would disagree. it never says in the bible that the see of Peter is in Rome. in fact (and don’t think i am saying the tired old argument that Peter was never in Rome…) the only city we know for sure Peter was the founder of the church was Antioch (this of course is excluding Jerusalem, but very early on we see that James, the “brother” of the Lord was the bishop of Jerusalem. so by your “biblically based” logic, Antioch is the see of Peter. your argument doesn’t hold water without first acknowledging the authority of Rome. you can’t get the authority of Rome strictly using scripture.

There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13)

So, Peter was in Iraq then? LOL Did we solve the problem?

 

[jmcrae]

Ordinary history tells us that Peter was executed in Rome in 67 AD - he got there somehow.

 

[bengal_fan]

There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13)

So, Peter was in Iraq then? LOL Did we solve the problem?

ummm, it’s not out of the realm of possibilities that he was in that region. i am not saying Peter wasn’t in rome (read my post). i am saying that he wasn’t exclusively in rome and in fact founded antioch and jerusalem first. so why not those cities being the see of Peter? my point (which the responders to my post seemed to miss completely) is that you cannot prove the catholic church’s claim as the one, true church using scripture alone. that doesn’t mean the claim isn’t valid, but the original poster who i was addressing was trying to say:
“if you just read the bible, you’ll see that the catholic church is the one, true church”
and my point is that just by reading the bible, you can’t see that.