Poll: Protestant a good thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trumpet152
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the question comes down to whether some truth and grace is better than no truth and no grace. For whatever reason (and I do believe it can be through no fault of their own and invincible ignorance) some people do not “get” what the Catholic Church has to offer. There really are many a cradle Catholic who may know something or other about Christ but do not know Him (as much as I hate the phrase) personally. You can say that they must be lazy or malicious to not have met Christ at Mass, but at the end of the day, you can’t possibly know why they are ignorant of Him, and you don’t have to know. God judges the heart. It is almost certain, though, that they are not going to meet Him if those who supposedly are his best buddies are telling them that they are lazy and malicious (even if they really are lazy and malicious). If you want someone to meet Jesus at Mass, show them how your encounter with Him there makes your life so much better.

It would be best for a Catholic to come to know Christ from within the Church, but better to meet Him elsewhere than not at all while still attending Mass. If God can bring good out of a less than perfect situation, that situation is good.
 
A bad catholic is better than a good protestant, mainly because keeping the faith poorly is better than adhereing to heresy.

“So now that these points have been formulated by us with all precision in every respect and with all care, we definitely state that it is not allowable for anyone to produce another faith, that is, to write or to compose or to consider or to teach others; those who dare to compose another faith, or to support or to teach or to hand on another creed to those who wish to turn to knowledge of the truth, whether from Hellenism or Judaism or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, or to introduce novelty of speech, that is, invention of terms, so as to overturn what has now been defined by us, such persons, if they are bishops or clerics, are deprived of their episcopacy or clerical rank, and if they are monks or layfolk they are excommunicated.” (the Third Council of Constantinople)

The Church long ago ruled that the invention of terms and novelty of speech was heresy. This covers things like “total depravity”, OSAS, Sola Fides, and Sola Scriptora. Any who desent the Church’s authority protests it, and those who protest teach another gospel.

I am sorry if I appear overly passionate about this, but this is an issue very close to my heart.
 
Really, I’d say as well, that no one finds Christ in “another church”. The Church is the font of Salvation, so even if a person finds Christ while not a practicing Catholic, it is still through the Catholic Church that Christ is made known to the world.
 
I pondered this for a long time and have concluded that this wouldn’t be a good thing. The person would be going from being in full communion with Our Lord, however weak that might be at that given moment, to being taken out of communion into an imperfect, and potentially false sense of salvation. It also presumes that we can make grace happen simply by changing the way we look at things. How could removing oneself from the Eucharist ever be a good thing? Even if the person had to refrain from receiving if he was in a state of mortal sin, there’s much to be gained simply by being in the presence of Our Lord.
 
40.png
trumpet152:
Ok, let’s say a catholic isn’t devout. He goes to Mass occasionally, but has no real relationship with Christ. A protestant shows him how to be “born again” and he developes a more intimate relationship with God. Would this be a good thing?
Click to expand...
I think so, but I’d still take issue on the fact that he never troubled about knowing more about his faith instead of lending his ears to the first “guru” who shows up around the corner.

:blessyou:
 
but I’d still take issue on the fact that he never troubled about knowing more about his faith instead of lending his ears to the first “guru” who shows up around the corner.
Click to expand...
Bad thing:
Since he has been led astray from the fullness of truth by one offering something much less.

The quote above really sort of sums up my own experience as well.

As one who fell into this very thing, I would much rather have had someone build me up in the fullness of the faith than to have idiotically left it and spent over 34 years among people who taught me errors as truth.

One of my own personal goals in life now is to see just how many others I can spare from this detour from the truth.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
Augustine:
I think so, but I’d still take issue on the fact that he never troubled about knowing more about his faith instead of lending his ears to the first “guru” who shows up around the corner.

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
That’s the same problem I see – this person “couldn’t learn” about Catholicism, but could find out about whatever protestant sect she elected to join.
 
But for Grace:
A bad catholic is better than a good protestant, mainly because keeping the faith poorly is better than adhereing to heresy.
Click to expand...
That’s it in a nutshell. The bad Catholic who defects to Protestantism has lost the virtue of Faith, and has exchanged his/her birthright for a mess of pottage, however sweet-smelling it may be.
 
Protestantism forced the Catholic Church to face it’s internal problems. Which it did. So now there is no longer any purpose for Protestantism. It’s time to restore the unity of Christianity. Many beliefs of separated Christians are simply re-incarnations of old heresies from the first centuries. It is time for the Church to call them what they are and condemn these heresies as she did in the past.
 
40.png
trumpet152:
Ok, let’s say a catholic isn’t devout. He goes to Mass occasionally, but has no real relationship with Christ. A protestant shows him how to be “born again” and he developes a more intimate relationship with God. Would this be a good thing?
Click to expand...
I opined “yes”, 'cause the question did not tell us that the Catholic left the Church,[as many seemed to assume and set their hair on fire] but only that someone taught them some aspects of Catholic Truth that, through poor teaching and poor example, the Church never communicated. In the Church he will have access to the graces to truly blossem into the holiness and the gifts of the Spirit that were his birthright. Might those things he learns be distorted, incomplete? Yes. Our task is to open His eyes to the wonder of the Christian life exemplified by our own lives and the teachings of God’s Church.

The response, however, of that Catholic’s Catholic peers will determine whether or not that person will remain in the church or be driven away by prejudices against people who never knew the full gospel.
Please stop seeing protestants as mere heretics and schismatics. Rather they are earnest seekers, [Samaritans, if you will], seekers after God, (by their history) denied access to the fullness of the sacrifces and the revelation.
So could a Samaritan who believed in Jesus, introduce a Jew to Christ? ans: yes. Would that Jew, by believing in Jesus, become a samaritan ? ans: no.

It would be a Bad Thing if that person left the church. Woe also to the souls who by their pride, bigotry, envy and formalisms drove that person out of God’s Church.

and Yes I am** now** a Catholic. Born a Baptist, led to faith and baptism, renewed into a vital, transforming union with Christ, and led by the Spirit to the truth of Catholic Doctrine… But it was only when I met Catholics that Lived a holy, vital union with Christ, that I was assured that the Catholic Church not only had the form of Godliness, but also demonstrated its power.
PS 2005-Sept 08 is also my 1st aniversary of the first mass I had ever been to. God had me on Rush delivery to Rome sweet Home. [Mary’s Birthday … hmmm]
Click to expand...
 
Good point Bro Rich. I agree. I don’t know the part about the prots making the Church look at itself…I don’t know if I agree or disagree with that, probly disagree…but the rest is right on.
 
I think we need to look at the terms that the Protestants use and the actions represented by the words and then go from there.
Protestants often speak of being “born again.” What does that mean? That means to them that they have developed an intimate relationship with Jesus. But wait a minute; what could be more intimate than to receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

So why do lapsed Catholics not see that this intimate act of self love by Christ can lead to our continual rebirth, or being “born again?” Ironically, it’s because Protestants rely on the emotions of “feeling” Christ, of personally experiencing Him, and because we are humans, we tend to use the emotions as a barometer of the legitimacy of a claim. But being “born again” can in no way substitute for the Sacrament of the Eucharist. So what we Catholics need to do is tell our wavering Catholic brethren that receiving Christ in the Eucharist, residing in His Church, partaking of His Sacraments is a rebirth, a being born again.

The Protestants have delivered the message of rebirth without having all the goods at their disposal, just a subjective personal relationship with Jesus; whereas we Catholics actually have the Incarnational Jesus fully manifest in the Eucharist which enables us to have an unparallelled relationship with Him – but we have not delivered this message with the same unabashed enthusiasm as the Protestants.
 
The Protestants have delivered the message of rebirth without having all the goods at their disposal, just a subjective personal relationship with Jesus; whereas we Catholics actually have the Incarnational Jesus fully manifest in the Eucharist which enables us to have an unparallelled relationship with Him – but we have not delivered this message with the same unabashed enthusiasm as the Protestants.
Click to expand...
Good point.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t have some special “feelings” every time that I receive the Eucharist-and I consider that a good thing as it encourages a deeper faith instead of a quest for a spiritual high that I think many folks look for. True faith needs no such subjective feelings, although it is good when we experience a feeling of rebirth when we receive the Blessed Sacrament or when we go to Confession.
 
Then why do some convert? If they have the fullness of the faith through the Catholic Church (and they do), than why is protestantism even tempting to them? Perhaps because they knew of God, but didn’t know God. They took the Eucharist with their mouths, but not with their hearts. Is that possible? :confused:
 
Many Protestant congregations are warm and welcoming. They study the Bible.

There “seems” to be a “culture” [don’t know what else to call it] within the Catholic Church that expects Catholics to “pick it up by osmosis”. Show up at Mass on Sunday. Pray, pay and obey.

One of my complaints for years was that I had NO IDEA of where to get good solid lay-person information and guidance at the adult level. The library had Aquinas and Augustine and maybe some of the dissidents, but not much that that was helpful to me on a busy work schedule … travel, commuting, family stuff.

When I was in Chicago on business, I looked up one of my old Air Force buddies and we met for dinner. He brought me a whole stack of well-written Protestant religious books. They were fabulous. C.S. Lewis comes to mind. It was back in the 1980’s. Before the internet.

Fell in with another group of Protestants who were writing about Christian Economics [and politely hostile to the Catholic Church]. Wrote to them and they put me in touch with a couple of Catholic book publishers.

My ignorance of Catholicism (even with 12 years of Catholic school education) was monumental. Constantly being embarrassed in casual conversations. Really humiliated by ignorance. One of my friends became a priest and I made some comment about the Church being formed AFTER the Bible was written; he said that, in contrast, the Church came first in time and then the Church wrote the Bible. REALLY??!!! I had no idea!! Or, where and when did Papal authority and succession come from. Or the history and course of the conflict between Christianity and Islam. Or where did St. Augustine live [North Africa - Tunisia] and what was the relationship between him and St. Jerome and other Church Fathers, the bible and the flow of history.

I kept searching and stumbled upon a serialized article by Karl Keating in The Wanderer * and wrote to Karl. He sent me a list of books; but they were all out of print.

Encountered Fr. Benedict Groeschel when I signed up for some grad school courses, one of which was taught by him, and learned that he had written a book. Bought the book. Bought all his books.

This has not been easy… to learn about Catholic adult spirituality and Catholic adult church history. *

When I was working, someone in an aisle-way bull session would ask me a sincere question - I remember one about Martin Luther - and I would give a brief dissertation and they would point blank ask me where I got all that information.

It just seems that the “organized Catholic Church” has been fighting me (and all other Catholic lay people) all the way.

What a struggle! Decades of struggling. Half a century. It has been a real personal odyssey. How many Catholic people are ready, willing and able and have the resources and the personal blessings to undergo this kind of search… to encounter these people … like Karl Keating, Fr. Benedict and the others on an individual direct and personal basis.

There were Catholic magazines in the back of church, but they seemed to be dissident (non-orthodox) or syrupy.

Protestants make it easy to be Protestant. The Bible and a subscription to Biblical Archeological Review and maybe Guideposts … and there you are…

Thank God for Catholic Answers and EWTN !**
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
Thats not true. As long as he did not know that the Catholic Church was Christ’s church, then he does not have full knowledge.

That said, it is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I think it is a bad thing. I think it is bad that this person hadn’t invested the same amount of time and effort in learning her Catholic faith as she is spending learning her new religion. I think it is bad that she allowed the devil to steer her away from the Church. I think it is bad that she is allowing mere humans speak to her about Truth. However, I think that most bad thing is that her family, her parish, and other Catholics near her didn’t sufficiently reach out to her during the times that she needed them. This is our calling- to spread the Good News and be a light to Christ. To some degree, people leaving the Church is a manifestation of the imperfection and sins of the church (defined here as the People of God). Every story I’ve ever heard of a person leaving the Catholic Church can be partially attributed to the wrongs (what was done or what was not done) of a Catholic in authority (authority includes roles given to parents, laity, teachers, cohorts and even Priests).

But that doesn’t mean that Good can’t come from it. With God, all things are possible. If enough people pray for this person (especially those who failed her) and in this “searching” for Christ, she opens her heart to the whisper of the Holy Spirit, I believe it is likely that she will return to the Catholic Church. Maybe I run in the “wrong” circles but I know numerous stories of lapsed Catholics returning after a period wandering the wilderness but I know nobody who was a Catholic convert who reverted back to their former religion.
 
alan

*Personally I believe God has allowed so many other denominations to exist for reasons other than to give apologists something to do.
*
God allows denominations to exist because God allows free will and rebellion against the true Church. That doesn’t make the denominations good. Christ prayed for the unity of the Church. The policy of Satan is quite the opposite:

DIVIDE AND CONQUER!!!
 
40.png
Oren:
No. They would be an apostate, and thus would have no chance of salvation, no matter how ‘good’ their ‘relationship’ with Jesus (if they in fact know who Jesus really is) would be. Unless of course they repented and came back to the Church before their death. That’s not to say that God could not bring good out of bad, He does that all the time.
Click to expand...
I would normally open, as usual, with a salutory greeting. However in your case I will omit that! I find it difficult to comprehend such bigoted reasoning, or worse belief. Are you saying that millions of people, living and dead, have forfitted salvation? What an interesting concept. Just who gave you the authority to state who would achieve salvation and who would not? It has always been my understanding that is relegated to God and to Him alone. Certainly not you or any institution on earth, laic or secular…
Dancus
 
40.png
dancus:
I would normally open, as usual, with a salutory greeting. However in your case I will omit that! I find it difficult to comprehend such bigoted reasoning, or worse belief. Are you saying that millions of people, living and dead, have forfitted salvation? What an interesting concept. Just who gave you the authority to state who would achieve salvation and who would not? It has always been my understanding that is relegated to God and to Him alone. Certainly not you or any institution on earth, laic or secular…
Dancus
Click to expand...
Like it or not, Oren’s view is consistent with the teaching of the Church. It is only recently that “no salvation outside the Church” has become so watered down as to have no meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top