Protestant - Catholic - Protestant?

[nickybr38]

I have a tendency to be that way. I think it was because we are trying to warn people. The people at my former church claimed to have the truth and so I listened to them only to find out they were a bunch of fools. Finding that out has sometimes been painful and so I wish to spare you of that pain.

I am a Catholic because the Protestant Gospel is incomplete and I needed the complete gospel. Within the complete gospel are all the tools to repair a broken soul. The Protestant Gospel is missing part of the gospel and so missing some of the tools.

I know this because I got a version of the incomplete gospel that was missing the particular tools that I needed. I found those tools in the practice of Catholic Christianity.

And so I don’t really consider Protestant Christianity real Christianity. It’s watered down, lazy, cheap, easy and basically worthless. Not of all it but it goes in that direction the farther removed it gets from the Church. Some churches in my city have entirely abandoned any traditions that even remotely resemble mass or any kind of orthodox liturgy. They have replace liturgy with rock concerts. They have made up a bunch of stuff that has no roots as all in historical Christianity.

In what way are these people Christians?

Protestants are real Christians. We recognize their baptism, thus they are Christian.

Some of them are on fire for the faith. Some aren’t. They’re human, like us.

I think the mistake you and I are making is blaming Protestants for Protestant theology but their theology is not necessarily their fault. We should be laying the blame on the shoulders of Luther and Calvin.

 

[nickybr38]

NickyB…I have a good friend who did as you asked in your original post: Protestant-Catholic-then back to Protestant, and has stayed there ever since for many years. I will ask her details on this and post what she tells me as to her thought process and feelings about it all.
I do know that she felt as you said, above…very angry at the Catholic church for the “perceived lies” she was told. She did tell me that once.

Will get back to you…

Oh! Now I’m really curious to know what lies she believes she was told!! Thank you.

 

[nickybr38]

Okay, I will get all the details and report back to you.
BUT…if I tell you honestly what she says, I don’t want to upset everybody and cause a ruckus!
(Or be accused of being in contempt of religion!!)

:nope:

): I can’t promise how others will react. I can promise I will merely read. I understand it will be her words, not yours.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Ive never heard of a person going protestant - catholic - protestant.

It is my opinion that if a person does so, probably never truly converted to Catholicism for good reasons (example: A person converting to Catholicism because of a girlfriend). Or probably never understood or learned Catholicism as he/she was supposed to.

If a person fully understands Catholicism (Traditions, Fathers of the Church, Liturgy, Papacy etc etc.) and goes back to protestantism…
then I’m quite speechless…

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Oh and the above post meant no offense to anyone. Its just my opinion.

 

[Mostyn]

Oh and the above post meant no offense to anyone. Its just my opinion.

That’s perfectly ok, no offense taken. I often wonder how Baptists feel about Scott Hann converting to Catholicism and how many followed in his footsteps.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

Bill Cork is a rather famous, in some circles, example of an Adventist who converted to Catholicism, was active (including in apologetics) as a Catholic on the internet and in person, and then, after many years, converted back to Adventism. I think his wife remained Adventist throughout. He started as a Adventist pastor and ended up as one again. I forget whether he was born Catholic or Adventist.

One could see in his writings late in his Catholic period that he was developing doubts about the Catholic faith. They’re somewhere on the web.

Why is it that Catholics that become Evangelicals or Lutherans or the other way always try to be Protestant’s Protestant or the Catholic’s Catholic and slam their former Church?

Most ex-Protestants tend to view their previous faith as a good one, that became complete when becoming Catholic. Many ex-Catholics see their previous faith as a bad one that they have rejected and now feel the need to bring down. From what I’ve seen, there is a substantial difference between the two experiences. Maybe that is just my perspective; maybe there is slamming of Protestantism going on.

Our Lutheran Divine Service has all elements of the RC Mass except the Sacrifice of the Mass. We believe that the sacrifice was done once by Christ.

Catholics also believe that the sacrifice was done once by Christ. We just believe that it is made present to us through the Mass. The Mass is a real sacrifice because it is the same sacrifice at Calvary made present through all time. The few people present at the foot of the cross nearly 2000 years ago are therefore not the only ones to be present at Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice.

 

[JustaServant]

Ive never heard of a person going protestant - catholic - protestant.

It is my opinion that if a person does so, probably never truly converted to Catholicism for good reasons (example: A person converting to Catholicism because of a girlfriend). Or probably never understood or learned Catholicism as he/she was supposed to.

If a person fully understands Catholicism (Traditions, Fathers of the Church, Liturgy, Papacy etc etc.) and goes back to protestantism…
then I’m quite speechless…

I would say he’s one confused person.
There was a poster here on CAF (now banned) who claimed he went from fundamentalist to Catholic to SSPX Catholic back to anti-Catholic fundamentalist.
Was he telling the truth? Hard to tell over the internet.

 

[Anna_Scott]

But Anna, these friends of yours still consider themselves catholic, right? Just defined differently than the pope might define the term?

Yes, they do. Just as I consider myself to be Catholic.

Perhaps the poster was refering to the sort of catholic, turned protestant who proclaims catholicism the 'Whore of Babylon?" Presumably neither you or your parishioners are that sort of folk…

We are not. It is not uncommon for our lessons to include quotes from Popes and quotes from Catholic authors.

Peace,
Anna

 

[nickybr38]

Bill Cork is a rather famous, in some circles, example of an Adventist who converted to Catholicism, was active (including in apologetics) as a Catholic on the internet and in person, and then, after many years, converted back to Adventism. I think his wife remained Adventist throughout. He started as a Adventist pastor and ended up as one again. I forget whether he was born Catholic or Adventist.

One could see in his writings late in his Catholic period that he was developing doubts about the Catholic faith. They’re somewhere on the web.

Most ex-Protestants tend to view their previous faith as a good one, that became complete when becoming Catholic. Many ex-Catholics see their previous faith as a bad one that they have rejected and now feel the need to bring down. From what I’ve seen, there is a substantial difference between the two experiences. Maybe that is just my perspective; maybe there is slamming of Protestantism going on.

Catholics also believe that the sacrifice was done once by Christ. We just believe that it is made present to us through the Mass. The Mass is a real sacrifice because it is the same sacrifice at Calvary made present through all time. The few people present at the foot of the cross nearly 2000 years ago are therefore not the only ones to be present at Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice.

Thank you for this! We found someone!!! I was starting to wonder if such a person existed… I would like confirmation on whether he was raised Catholic or not but it’s not THAT important so I won’t hunt it down or anything. Haha. Call it morbid curiousity on my part.

I love conversion stories.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

There was a poster here on CAF (now banned) who claimed he went from fundamentalist to Catholic to SSPX Catholic back to anti-Catholic fundamentalist.
Was he telling the truth? Hard to tell over the internet.

A few thoughts on that. I think it’s quite possible.

The step from fundamentalist to Catholic is a logical one, but one that isn’t always complete in terms of understanding the biblical basics of the Catholic faith. If that basis is shaky, SSPX is the wrong place to go next. However, if the fundamentalist tendencies remain, the SSPX may well be very attractive - he would feel at home there. BUT that is where the shaky groundwork takes its toll - SSPX is fundamentalist in a very different way.

The average Catholic interested in apologetics knows how Mary and justification and purgatory and prayers to saints work. SSPX is very intense on these unique Catholic experiences, and if you stick a fundamentalist Protestant in with a group of SSPX people all the wrong ideas will come out - and I am sure the SSPX people WILL say things like “atoning for our sins in purgatory” and “good works lead to salvation” and so forth. But the SSPX people know WHY they say these things, their beliefs are solidly biblical, but their language is on the opposite extreme of Catholic jargon to that which brought the fundamentalist into the Catholic Church. What they MEAN with their (legitimate) use of various English terms is Catholic, but it needs to be heavily translated for the inexperienced.

Example:
Fundamentalist: Catholics worship Mary.
Mainstream Catholic: No, we merely honour her as a blessed creature [going into explanations of dulia and latria etc etc]
SSPX Catholic: Yes, of course we worship Mary. [And no explanation that what they mean by worship is not adoration.]
So the fundamentalist, having been attracted to a form of fundamentalism within the Catholic community, “discovers” that his anti-Catholic fundamentalism was correct all along. In reality it was not, and the SSPX practice and belief are really the SAME as the mainstream practice and belief, only the SSPX never saw the need to use terms and explanations they themselves don’t need.

Sort of like the Bible (and yes, yes, Tradition) being the foundation for the Church, and those in the pews are close to the ground and can happily show the foundation to anyone who asks - but those swinging from the rafters with their heads in the clouds (SSPX, many papal documents, many theologians and philosophers) - while rightly doing so in the same Church - have lost touch the language and skills needed down on the floor.

One can certainly understand how the Reformation came about if there were people who misunderstood, and then took offence at, fundamentalist language (on the rafter/cloud spectrum of fundamentalism) used to promote legitimate beliefs and practices.*

 

[MariaG]

Why is it that Catholics that become Evangelicals or Lutherans or the other way always try to be Protestant’s Protestant or the Catholic’s Catholic and slam their former Church?

Always?

 

[JustaServant]

A few thoughts on that. I think it’s quite possible.

The step from fundamentalist to Catholic is a logical one, but one that isn’t always complete in terms of understanding the biblical basics of the Catholic faith. If that basis is shaky, SSPX is the wrong place to go next. However, if the fundamentalist tendencies remain, the SSPX may well be very attractive - he would feel at home there. BUT that is where the shaky groundwork takes its toll - SSPX is fundamentalist in a very different way.

The average Catholic interested in apologetics knows how Mary and justification and purgatory and prayers to saints work. SSPX is very intense on these unique Catholic experiences, and if you stick a fundamentalist Protestant in with a group of SSPX people all the wrong ideas will come out - and I am sure the SSPX people WILL say things like “atoning for our sins in purgatory” and “good works lead to salvation” and so forth. But the SSPX people know WHY they say these things, their beliefs are solidly biblical, but their language is on the opposite extreme of Catholic jargon to that which brought the fundamentalist into the Catholic Church. What they MEAN with their (legitimate) use of various English terms is Catholic, but it needs to be heavily translated for the inexperienced.

Example:
Fundamentalist: Catholics worship Mary.
Mainstream Catholic: No, we merely honour her as a blessed creature [going into explanations of dulia and latria etc etc]
SSPX Catholic: Yes, of course we worship Mary. [And no explanation that what they mean by worship is not adoration.]
So the fundamentalist, having been attracted to a form of fundamentalism within the Catholic community, “discovers” that his anti-Catholic fundamentalism was correct all along. In reality it was not, and the SSPX practice and belief are really the SAME as the mainstream practice and belief, only the SSPX never saw the need to use terms and explanations they themselves don’t need.

Sort of like the Bible (and yes, yes, Tradition) being the foundation for the Church, and those in the pews are close to the ground and can happily show the foundation to anyone who asks - but those swinging from the rafters with their heads in the clouds (SSPX, many papal documents, many theologians and philosophers) - while rightly doing so in the same Church - have lost touch the language and skills needed down on the floor.

One can certainly understand how the Reformation came about if there were people who misunderstood, and then took offence at, fundamentalist language (on the rafter/cloud spectrum of fundamentalism) used to promote legitimate beliefs and practices.*

Good post. Thanks.
My hesitancy to beleive this guy was based more in the worship practices. A Traditional Latin Mass (which requires a lot of kneeling, standing, sitting, kneeling again, ect) is light years away from fundamentalist worship (where participation simply requires my butt in a pew). It’s like going from Sesame Street arithmatic to Calculus overnight. I suppose its possible, but I can’t see the person remaining there long.

 

[MariaG]

A few thoughts on that. I think it’s quite possible…

I agree

Example:
Fundamentalist: Catholics worship Mary.
Mainstream Catholic: No, we merely honour her as a blessed creature [going into explanations of dulia and latria etc etc]
SSPX Catholic: Yes, of course we worship Mary. [And no explanation that what they mean by worship is not adoration.]

GREAT example! It really drives me nuts the Catholics who here in the forums and in person make the statements like “of course we worship Mary” without any explanation. It is like they are trying to drive people away from the Catholic Church, since one cannot be a Christian and worship anyone but the One true God. And in their understanding, there is one definition of worship.

So the fundamentalist, having been attracted to a form of fundamentalism within the Catholic community, “discovers” that his anti-Catholic fundamentalism was correct all along. In reality it was not, and the SSPX practice and belief are really the SAME as the mainstream practice and belief, only the SSPX never saw the need to use terms and explanations they themselves don’t need.

I wouldn’t say, nor do I believe would they, that they are the same, but I do believe I understand your point

 

[cath4alltime]

Oh and the above post meant no offense to anyone. Its just my opinion.

I did. I was Protestant converted to Catholicism through no coercion by anyone (no girlfriend or anything and throughly studied Catholicism) and than went back and came back to Catholicism. I never know what the future will hold and my doubts while mostly dormant for now always return strong when they do.

 

[manualman]

…
And so I don’t really consider Protestant Christianity real Christianity. It’s watered down, lazy, cheap, easy and basically worthless. …

In what way are these people Christians?

Portions removed for brevity.

Zeal is a good thing, I’ll grant you that much. But be careful not to let it morph into pride when you aren’t looking. You get no credit for discovering the truth of catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit does.

In the same vein, sincere, but erroneous protestants still receive credit for the way in which they have faithfully attempted to respond to the Graces they HAVE received.

Christianity may be defined as a doctrinal system centered on Christ. But individual christians are defined by their relationship with Christ, not by correct doctrine or liturgical practices. It is a gnostic idea that posits that one is saved by correct doctrine. Correct doctrine is great fertilizer, but without the mustard seed there is nothing to grow. Knowledge is not slavific, faith (which is a life lived) is.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Portions removed for brevity.

Zeal is a good thing, I’ll grant you that much. But be careful not to let it morph into pride when you aren’t looking. You get no credit for discovering the truth of catholic teaching, the Holy Spirit does.

In the same vein, sincere, but erroneous protestants still receive credit for the way in which they have faithfully attempted to respond to the Graces they HAVE received.

Christianity may be defined as a doctrinal system centered on Christ. But individual christians are defined by their relationship with Christ, not by correct doctrine or liturgical practices. It is a gnostic idea that posits that one is saved by correct doctrine. Correct doctrine is great fertilizer, but without the mustard seed there is nothing to grow. Knowledge is not slavific, faith (which is a life lived) is.

manualman,

Though not addressed to me, I appreciate this most charitable post which reflects Catholic beliefs concerning salvation of Christians outside the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

It is a gnostic idea that posits that one is saved by correct doctrine.

Never thought of it that way - thanks for putting it like that.

 

[manualman]

Never thought of it that way - thanks for putting it like that.

I have a few original ideas, but alas this is not one of them. It comes from an excellent article by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in his examination of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

His conclusion: the LDS Church is a non-christian sect to which a substantial number of christians belong. While the belief system fails the test of doctrine, not a small number of the people within do seem to have that relationship between Savior and repentant sinner that truly defines what a christian is.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

I have a few original ideas, but alas this is not one of them. It comes from an excellent article by the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus in his examination of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

His conclusion: the LDS Church is a non-christian sect to which a substantial number of christians belong. While the belief system fails the test of doctrine, not a small number of the people within do seem to have that relationship between Savior and repentant sinner that truly defines what a christian is.

Many say the same about us Catholics, but they tend to only allow salvation for those who don’t acknowledge the doctrine, not for those who do yet have such a relationship with God.

As for the Mormons, whatever they are theologically, I’ve not come across a group that displays such clear Christian behaviour and such a relationship as they do. At least in my experience. Sadly the same can’t be said about Catholics.