No such thing as a Catholic convert?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carly

Guest
Previously, I had heard a few anti-Catholic Protestant apologists make the claim that one can’t really be a Catholic convert because in order to convert to Catholicism one has to use the Protestant method of personal interpretation. Their contention is that to be really Catholic, you have to be born Catholic, since converts all used Protestant methodology to arrive at their acceptance of Catholicism. Lately, I have seen more and more people use this line of reasoning.

How can we respond to this stuff?

In Christ,
Carly
 
Maybe I just don’t understand the line of reasoning they are using, but that sounds kind of silly. In fact, that doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Could you maybe explain this argument further? (Forgive me if I’m just being thick headed!)
 
Sure, no problem. I also just want to clarify that I am not supporting this view, I am asking for insight into a rebuttal of it.

Okay, the line of reasoning goes that Catholics object to the individual interpretation and discernment that Protestants use to arrive at their doctrinal position. Catholics submit to the authority of the Magisterium in doctrinal matters. But in order to decide to become Catholic you have to use the Protestant method of individual interpretation to decide that the Magisterium does in fact have the authority to teach.

Therefore these Protestant apologists (usually Eric Svendson) claim that converting to Catholicism is an oxymoron because they say you’ve used personal judgement to decide that personal judgement is not a correct method of arriving at a doctrine.
 
I dont know about the rest of the converts out there, but I can not even picture myself as protestant any more. That past life is buried. It’s like I was never protestant. I know no other way but catholicism. Even now, protestant worship seems so foreign to me. I arrived at being catholic because of the leading of the Holy Spirit and alot of personal prayer and research. The protestant church I attended could never take the credit for me arriving at catholicism because they were blatantly anti-catholic. THis reasoning of us arriving at catholicism through protestant training or such seems crazy to me.
 
Joshua,

These people are saying that you are using Protestant methods of personal judgement, not Protestant theology.
 
II Paradox II:
That does seem like an odd argument… Who uses it?

I’ve seen a lot of argument that catholics must use personal interpretation, but I’ve never heard anyone argue that this means one can’t be catholic by virtue of their method of knowing something…

ken
Click to expand...
I think it originated with Eric Svendson and caught on rapidly in that circle.
 
“one can’t really be a Catholic convert because in order to convert to Catholicism one has to use the Protestant method of personal interpretation”

Clear as mud. :confused: Even though I think I understand Carly’s post, I’m not sure how these protestants can arrive at this conclusion.
 
40.png
Carly:
I think it originated with Eric Svendson and caught on rapidly in that circle.
Click to expand...
You clarified the argument more in your second post, it made more sense then. It sounded quite odd when you first articulated it.

ken
 
40.png
Carly:
Previously, I had heard a few anti-Catholic Protestant apologists make the claim that one can’t really be a Catholic convert because in order to convert to Catholicism one has to use the Protestant method of personal interpretation. Their contention is that to be really Catholic, you have to be born Catholic, since converts all used Protestant methodology to arrive at their acceptance of Catholicism. Lately, I have seen more and more people use this line of reasoning.

How can we respond to this stuff?

In Christ,
Carly
Click to expand...
This is just them trying to be clever, another underhand statement with no substance nor backbone to it.
 
I agree that the statement is just being cute, but nonetheless, that is not a valid rebuttal when debating however informal.
 
I do not think it matters what road you take, it is where you end up that counts (and what you do once you are there). I give no credence to this “theory”.
 
Carly,

I would respond that I’m not converting to Catholicism due to my personal interpretation, rather I’m converting because the Holy Spirit allowed me to submit to the teaching authority of the Church and all that it entails.

Joel
 
Let’s consider how the early Christians became Catholic, or how the Catholic Church came into being. Before formalization of the canon, there was no New Testament; indeed, there was no Bible. Did these individuals become Catholic because of "private interpretation?? Interpretation of what? All they could interpret was what someone told them orally. If they understood it wrong, they could appeal to those who had authority by Christ to interpret (i.e. the primitive magesterium). That authority didn’t vanish with the death of the apostle John, Clement of Rome, or any of the others. It was passed on as the living magesterium. It was only after there was a written word that that particular argument seems to make any sense. And if that were the case, then the only “true Catholics” would have been those who never had a Bible, or at least couldn’t read it due to illiteracy or ignorance. Therefore, “private interpretation” isn’t the only way to entry into the Catholic Church. There are lots of “true Catholics” (regardless of how that term is defined by someone like Svendsen) who became Catholic without the benefit of a Bible, both in modern times and ancient times. This argument is based on the assumption that the only source of truth and authority (as the Bible apparently can interpret itself in the mind of some individuals), lies in the Bible. However, as Catholics, we know this is a false premise. Therefore, anything that follows from it is moot. Unless I’m understanding the premise wrong, this argument doesn’t seem to hold water.
 
40.png
joelmichael:
Carly,

I would respond that I’m not converting to Catholicism due to my personal interpretation, rather I’m converting because the Holy Spirit allowed me to submit to the teaching authority of the Church and all that it entails.

Joel
Click to expand...
Welcome and Congratultions !
 
40.png
joelmichael:
Carly,

I would respond that I’m not converting to Catholicism due to my personal interpretation, rather I’m converting because the Holy Spirit allowed me to submit to the teaching authority of the Church and all that it entails.

Joel
Click to expand...
This is a good answer. And besides, there is such a thing as objective Truth. Catholicism is a revealed religion. Jesus did not tell St. Peter “Blessed are you because you have the correct personal interpretation of who I am”…He said “Flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in heaven”.
 
Perhaps they are thinking that thinking for oneself is the equivilent of personal interpretation of Scripture. It had to be God who led me into the Catholic Church because I knew so little about it. Over time, I read the Bible, history, biographies of saints & famous Catholics, and I could see for myself that the Catholic Church was right.

Like Joshua1 - & I’m certain many others - I can’t picture myself ever returning to any of the Protestant chuches I attended.
 
I reject the notion made by those whom Carly was referring to, that there is no such thing as a Catholic Convert. My journey so far, has not been because of Protestant private interpretation, since I was never a baptized member of any Protestant churches, and have never held to any Protestant theology.

It’s by gentle nudgings from the Holy Spirit to want to investigate the truth to full blown dragging (kicking and screaming, I may add) when I started to rebel against what I knew to be true.

Now, my feet are firmly planted, and I’m still heading Home.
 
40.png
Carly:
Okay, the line of reasoning goes that Catholics object to the individual interpretation and discernment that Protestants use to arrive at their doctrinal position. Catholics submit to the authority of the Magisterium in doctrinal matters. But in order to decide to become Catholic you have to use the Protestant method of individual interpretation to decide that the Magisterium does in fact have the authority to teach.

Therefore these Protestant apologists (usually Eric Svendson) claim that converting to Catholicism is an oxymoron because they say you’ve used personal judgement to decide that personal judgement is not a correct method of arriving at a doctrine.
Click to expand...
Their argument is ridiculously flawed from the outset. They are saying that Catholics can’t use individual interpretation and discernment. This is dubious at best, as Catholics may, within the bounds set by the Magisterium, do just that.

But the argument falters even before it gets to that point for a very simple reason- people who are deciding to become Catholic are, tautologically speaking, not yet Catholic. *Only *upon becoming so are they submitting to the Magisterium. Before that point they are free to choose any methodology they like. Even one that is favored by, but by no means the sole possession of, Protestants.

In the end, Catholic converts use personal judgement to arrive at the conclusion that we should submit to God through His Church. We do not repudiate personal judgement in all aspects of life as a means of decision making, just doctrinal understanding.
 
I honestly don’t think I ever interpreted the Bible when I was a Protestant. In Fundamentalist circles…they do it for you. I know many Catholics think Protestantism is a freel for all but in reality in most Fundamentalist circles you interpret the Bible the way the Pastor does and you just hope he’s right…and I find it highly ironic that they question someone submitting to the authority of the Pope. :rolleyes: Sometimes the church itself revolves around the cult of the personality of the Pastor…or some leader like Bob Jones.

I don’t ever remember thinking "I think this verse means this’. What I would do was think “I wonder if this verse means this…” and then I would look it up in commentaries or read a sermon from some Fundamentalist Pastor about it and adjust my thinking.

I maintain that this so called ‘personal interpretation’ does not in reality exist …at least in the Fundamentalist/evangelical circles. The more mainstream churches I cannot speak to…

So I would say I did arrive at a decision after much study and prayer that the Catholic Church held the truth…but I did not arrive at that conclusion using the same methods I did when I was a Fundamentalist Protestant.

dream wanderer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top