No such thing as a Catholic convert?

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

Thank the good Lord that your feelings and emotions lead you to the right place. That could only be the work of the Holy Spirit. However, we need to be careful to use that as an answer to the question posed at the beginning of this thread. In fact, many Protestants use the same justification for their rejection of the Catholic Church; it doesn’t feel right when I’m in a Catholic Church, but it sure feels right when I’m in a Pentecostal church. It was the same appeal to feelings and emotions that caused numerous individuals to commit ritual suicide with Jim Jones and modern day terrorists to kill many innocents today. While I don’t discount the working of the Holy Spirit in your life (indeed that is wonderful), we cannot appeal to it to answer the question posed by the author of this thread.
 
Slow Burn:
Tirian, above, hit the nail on the head. “Private interpretation” is a requirement of everyday life. When a cheeseburger is sitting in front of me, I have to make a “private interpretation” that it is, indeed, a cheeseburger. What allows me to come to that conclusion, after all, I could interpret it as a screwdriver or a train boxcar? It is intellect. That’s why it was given to us. Someone above asked for an analogy. Here’s one:

The answer to the question 2+2=?, required “private judgement”. I know (as well as is possible given my human condition), that 2+2=4. However, I may come to the conclusion that 2+2=5 with that same private interpretation. But that would be illogical. This is a mathematical absolute truth.

The problem with Protestantism, as I see it, is that it is illogical; as illogical as 2+2=5. In spite of the overwhelming evidence and the fact that reasoning precludes the arguments given in favor of Protestantism, some still choose this “interpretation”. In other words, some still chose to believe that 2+2=5, even after all of the evidence indicates that 2+2=4. Belief in Catholicism is not “just as rational” as belief in some other faith just because “private interpretation” is utilized in one’s decision. Belief in the truth of Catholisim is faith in evidence; it is not blind. No other faith has such overwhelming evidence for it’s position.

There is none so blind as those that will not see…
Click to expand...
The protestant who makes the argument that I stated above is asking a philosophical question: How do we know? How do we know that the Catholic Church is an infallible teacher? Yes, there may be facts and evidence, but still it is I who has to decide whether those thing actually are facts.

The protestant is used to the Catholic objecting to their methodology. Therefore, when they see the Catholic using the same methodology, they see a logical contradiction.

We have to understand that the protestant looks at the world differently than we do as Catholics. In this case, they don’t see Church-as-teacher. Their philosophical starting point is always the individual.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
The protestant who makes the argument that I stated above is asking a philosophical question: How do we know? How do we know that the Catholic Church is an infallible teacher? Yes, there may be facts and evidence, but still it is I who has to decide whether those thing actually are facts.

QUOTE]

How do we know anything at all? At some point, we need to proceed beyond speculation that there is another way to perceive something beyond our physical senses. That “beyond” is faith; faith in evidence. All logical human beings must concede that. God only gave us finite minds, so finite minds are how we must assess the world around us and deduce truth. Sure, it is possible that any moment now I may “wake up” in a black void of nothingness and learn that all I thought I experienced was a pseudocerebral fiction. It’s possible (although tremendously improbable) that all of those who claimed to see Christ alive after his death on the cross were living a pipe dream; all of them. Even Protestants must accept that. In fact, that idea has been proposed by modernists. But it flies in the face of all we know regarding common sense.

Arguments like this then border on trying to understand the metaphysical. But God didn’t give us a metaphysical Jesus. He revealed himself to us in a human, real, physical form; something we could understand given our finite minds. It is with this mind that we must understand the truths he has revealed. In fact, someone who pushes this idea isn’t debating who God put in charge of his Church on earth or which “truths” are really true. What he is pushing is the debate on whether ANY transcendent being exists at all.
Click to expand...
 
Another interesting question for Protestants on this is… If you have no claim to infallibility, then how do you have total assurance of salvation?

Another issue that you can raise is the difference between the magisterium and the layman in regards to infallible doctrine. The magisterium acts as a teacher does to a classroom.

The class can fall in line with the teacher and hence pass the class or can go off on their own and fail.

Btw, when I reverted to Catholicism, one of the most difficult things for me to accept was how blatant the authority of the church is from a biblical standpoint.

Peace,

Vincent
 
So, they base their faith on their interpretation of the Bible, a book written and authorized by the Catholic Church, does this mean they cannot be Protestant?
 
40.png
Socrates:
I might say that “convert” is not the right word for a Protestant who becomes Catholic. I think of them more as Christians who have come to know the fullness of truth where they once only knew part of the truth.
Click to expand...
Amen, Socrates!

I feel that I have reconciled myself to the Catholic Church by presenting myself for confirmation and submitting to the teachings of the magisterium. IMHO, one cannot convert from one major world religion to the same major world religion.

I did not change religions when I became a Catholic Christian instead of a Protestant Christian, but I did come into the fullness of the Christian Faith.

Thank God!

Iguana
 
Robin L. in TX:
So, they base their faith on their interpretation of the Bible, a book written and authorized by the Catholic Church, does this mean they cannot be Protestant?
Click to expand...
The problem comes in on this issue. If one uses their personal interpretation outside of union with the church, how much heresy will God tolerate? I have no idea.

In fact in my years of Christianity it is this one point that I wrestle with. How far is too far. If you read up on what is said about heretics in the bible, it is harsh. So, in answer to your question, I hope and believe that God is lenient on those that remain invincibally ignorant. Otherwise, I leave their relationship to be between them and God.

Peace,

Vincent
 
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...
Too true, Due to the guiding of the Holy Spirit, we are able to give our personal judgement and interpretations a secondary place to the Pillar and Bulwarkof the Truth, The Church.
 
Sola Scriptura is employed by Protestants, but I don’t think that makes it impossible for acceptance of Catholic doctrines. After all, Protestants, while they would seemingly be ‘united’ in their own doctrinal beliefs using the Bible alone, are not. They argue amongst themselves on a variety of doctrines–thus the existence and creation of an ever-growing number of Protestant denominations. So, this theory seems useless.

God gave us all reason, whether Protestant or Catholic. I think the more you learn about the Catholic faith, the more ‘reason-able’ it becomes, and, eventually, (if open to Truth), the more clear and undeniable it becomes.

The following are some questions and comments made by Catholic apologists that would be good to mention to those Protestants who would make that claim…

“Do you read the Bible with an unbiased purity of mind, or are you influenced by certain doctrinal presuppositions, and where did they come from? So, there you sit reading your Bible and thinking it is only you and the Holy Spirit, but there is much more involved, and it would behoove you to remove your head from the sand and acknowledge the Catholic Church that gave you the book. You sit with translators and traditions on your right and on your left. The less you know of history, the Jews, the teaching of the Fathers, the formulations of the creeds and councils, etc., the more vulnerable you are to misunderstanding, deception, oversimplification, unnecessary complication and heresy.”

”…Everyone trusts in someone or something, whether it’s Tradition or Protestant “Reformation mythology” (“Luther lit a candle in the darkness…”) or Billy Graham or an infallible Bible (but which interpretation?) or Pastor Doe down the street or J. Vernon McGee, or whatever I feel the “Spirit” is telling me up in my attic, surrounded by the infallible, “perspicuous,” and trustworthy guidance of the Bible . . ."

In conclusion, I would say, again, that this ‘claim’ is bogus and can easily be refuted simply by the blatantly obvious fact that Protestant denominations are so numerous despite their bible alone stance.
 
P.S. By the way, this latest Protestant ‘theory’ is only a lame attempt to explain away conversions to the Catholic faith. Very lame.
 
40.png
Carly:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit like some tricky sophistry to me. I’m a convert.

What they are mixing up is the protestant claim to the right to “interpret scripture” and the categorical across the board requirement of God that each individual has to accept God’s gift of Grace for themself. They need only read Dignitatis Humanae to understand how the Church sees the individual. Without that freewill requirement, whenever and however it is excercised in our lives, we would all be Calvinists.

Furthermore, a rebel can repent and “submit” to authority, giving up his/her own will to God’s will, and the authority of His Church. I know, I did just that.

Ultimately, if turning over our will to God’s will is not possible, then none of us can be saved, protestant or Catholic, and Christ’s work was in vain.

No, the argument is confusing a conclusion from reasoned argument with an act of the will.
 
dream wanderer:
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
Click to expand...
Did you ever notice that the denominations who holler the loudest about Catholic doctrines being “traditions of men” have no qualms about imposing their own ‘traditions’ with little or no scriptural basis? For instance, no smoking, no drinking (what would a baptist do at Cana:bigyikes: ?), no caffeine, no dancing, no movies, adhering to the Jewish dietary laws (:hmmm:I thought Jesus said it was what came out of a man, not what went in, that defiled him), instructions on what to wear (i.e. no short sleeve shirts for men, no slacks for women), etc.

Just a thought.
 
Les Richardson:
Sounds a bit like some tricky sophistry to me. I’m a convert.

What they are mixing up is the protestant claim to the right to “interpret scripture” and the categorical across the board requirement of God that each individual has to accept God’s gift of Grace for themself. They need only read Dignitatis Humanae to understand how the Church sees the individual. Without that freewill requirement, whenever and however it is excercised in our lives, we would all be Calvinists.

Furthermore, a rebel can repent and “submit” to authority, giving up his/her own will to God’s will, and the authority of His Church. I know, I did just that.

Ultimately, if turning over our will to God’s will is not possible, then none of us can be saved, protestant or Catholic, and Christ’s work was in vain.

No, the argument is confusing a conclusion from reasoned argument with an act of the will.
Click to expand...
So then, the individual is free to make some manner of judgments for himself, but that does not include the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture.

For one thing, there are many things that can be deduced through the use of logic, but the spiritual meanings of Scripture (as opposed to the literal meaning) cannot necessarily be deduced.

What do you think?
 
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...
You can tell them that they don’t know their scripture.
Remember what our Lord Jesus said to a famous convert, St. Peter:
Matt 16:11-12
**Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. **

It is God who reveals Himself to us.
Tell them THAT!!
“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” - St. Jerome
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
So then, the individual is free to make some manner of judgments for himself, but that does not include the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture.

For one thing, there are many things that can be deduced through the use of logic, but the spiritual meanings of Scripture (as opposed to the literal meaning) cannot necessarily be deduced.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Considering that there are more than 25,000 denominations of Christians all claiming to interpret scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet there is only one Holy Spirit; one then has to conclude that someone is in error, or the Holy Spirit wants this manifest disunity. This all comes about with the insistence on Sola Scriptura.
If you remember the chronology, (and this is what really convinced me) it was the Church that determined the Canon, ie. what was and was not inspired by God, based on existing criteria, or in other words Holy Tradition. That means there existed an infallibility of the Church from the beginning to interpret scripture because it was the Church that decided what was Scripture.

My point is that the issue of free will is a totally different issue. That is the way God made us, and if we think about it, what He really wants from us is love in return for His love, love for His own sake, and that can only come from a free individual. That choice, that act of will, to love God results in the gift of His Grace, through the work of Jesus Christ on Calvary and through the Sacraments.

And Catholic theology holds that the act of will to love God is continuous throughout life, it is not a one-time event, like buying an insurance policy. And God’s gifts of Grace are continuous as well as we willingly receive them. The Catechism speaks of ongoing *conversion *as we over and over by an act of our will, submit that will to God.

Clearly, we are rational beings, able to read the CCC and the Bible and learn directly, but part of loving God and giving our will over to His is recognizing that His Church is the authority. If our own interpretation differs from the Church, the Church is right. If we don’t understand what we are reading, we seek clarification from the Church. And, of course, we can read Scripture and interpret spiritual meaning where we already have spiritual understanding from the Church and what we see confirms it.

Remember, however, there is much that we would be hard pressed to deduce from Scripture alone. For example, the Trinity. That is never expressed in those terms in the Bible. Yet there are very few Christian denominations that reject it. And they got it from Holy Tradition, whether they know it or not. Moreover, the Bible is not exhaustive on every detail. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are told by four different authors and St. John tells us that there is much more that wasn’t written down.

So we have to rely on the Church and Holy Tradition.
 
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...
Hmmmmmmmmmm…sounds like a decieving thing! Maybe they don’t want Protestants to become Cathoic and know the TRUTH and they are decieved. What a bummer. [’)"]http://unity.enya.com/images/smiles/icon_smile_disapprove.gif]("javascript:insertsmilie(’[V)
 
40.png
Carly:
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.
Click to expand...
Going by that logic, all of the Jewish converts to Christianity in the first century weren’t really Christians either. There had to be some level on personal judgement on their part when they decided to convert after hearing Jesus and/or the Apostles preach to them.
 
I would also respond that its incorrect to say that protestant converts to Catholicism only use “protestant methodologies” to arrive at the decision to convert. Many protestants only examine the Bible to know about and support their faith. Most times converts to Catholicism make the decision after studying church history and the writings of the early church fathers. Plus, to say that Catholic converts only use “personal judgement” completely rules out the possibility that the Holy Spirit would lead someone to the Catholic Church, which I believe it usually the ultimate reason someone converts if they really understand and accept the Faith.
 
40.png
CollegeKid:
Going by that logic, all of the Jewish converts to Christianity in the first century weren’t really Christians either. There had to be some level on personal judgement on their part when they decided to convert after hearing Jesus and/or the Apostles preach to them.
Click to expand...
same for the Gentile converts, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top