Protestant eager to become Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Erick_Ybarra

Guest
Hello everybody,

I have come to the Lord Jesus Christ and to know Him through protestantism. I am reared in the baptistic traditions, calvinistic, etc,etc fundamentalism.

I have been reading alot of books by Scott Hahn, looking at the works of Robert Sugenis, Fr Robert Barron, reading books edited by Marcus Grodi, went through the book by Currie Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic, watching episodes of Marcus Grodi, listening to mp3’s on Catholic apologetics, reading the early fathers, etc,etc

Let me first say that, as a protestant, I was never taught the whole “ask Jesus into your heart and pray a little prayer”. I was taught that the offer of forgiveness was find in self-crucifixion for the sake of Jesus Christ. I learned this in a baptist Church. In fact, all of baptistic history teaches this if you read the Confessions of Faith in baptistic history.

I have always been taught that perserverance is required in order to enter the kingdom of God. Good works are what pass us into the Kingdom at the final judgement. I have learned this in a baptist church. And in fact, all baptists have believed this historically. (minus the apostacy of the last century)

I have always been taught that one is under the authority of a Bishop (of a Baptist church). The idea of ecclesiastical authority was big in the baptist churches that I am familiar with.

Therefore, I am simply unaware of the “type” of evangelicalism that often these converts to Catholicism have experienced such as Hahn, Grodi, Currie, etc,etc.

As of Right now, I am still protestant. However, I believe in the Eucharist as a mystery and sacrifice where Jesus’ real flesh and blood are present with us in the elements. I believe that we are justified (at the final judgement) by our deeds (the assumption of faith doesn’t even need to be mentioned, deeds will do). I believe that baptism is a sacrament wherein God is working his miracle of salvation, the forgiveness of sin, through the sacrament of water and the word of God the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that it is extremely important to understand Church History and the early Apostolic deposit of faith, and the Creeds. I believe in the liturgy.

I still consider myself a baptist, however. Despite how weird this seems. I see no practice of infant baptism in the NT or the early church. There is only records of later theologians stating there has been traditions since the apostles. However, this is not attested to in any of the apostolic fathers minus ireneuas. Tertullian, who is well aware of the tradition of the Catholic church and the world-wide plants, has no problem in denying infant baptism, much less it being a order of the church.

I believe that one can lose their salvation if they fall away from the faith.

Right now, the barriers between me and coming into the Catholic Church are twofold:
  1. I do not see a papacy in the Early Church centuries. There can be no development for the papacy (conceptually) considering it’s claims. For example, the Davidic office, there can be no conceptual development of it during its earthly course prior to the coming of Christ. God spoke to David, established a dynasty with his seed, and the structure was there right from the beginning. There was no conceptual development. However, the papacy, who claims to be an antitype of the Davidic office, has conceptual development well after Peter himself, and even those who succeeded him. This is embarrassingly weak in my view.
  2. I was raised Catholic, and from my experience, I have seen a lot of members of the Catholic faith who are outwardly ungodly in their life, but attend mass weekly. From the protestant side of things which I become familiar with later in life, our congregations were held accountable to live holy lives, and if we failed to do this, we were disciplined, and even excommunicated by any unrepentant sin.
Is there anyone who can help my disorderly situation?

Erick
 
For a wonderful explanation of the papacy, I recommend the encyclical Satis cognitum by Pope Leo XIII: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Paragraph 13 (I mean the section, “The Roman Pontiffs Possess Supreme Power in the Church Jure Divino”, that starts with “13.”), especially, gives some examples from the early Church of the reality of the papacy. You might need some context, though. Sections 11 and 12 help. But the whole thing is great! I hope it helps 🙂

If individual Catholics are sinners, that has no bearing on whether or not the Catholic faith is true. There’s no logical link. “And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick. I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance” (Luke 5:31-32).
 
Thank you for this link.

I understand the “claims” of the Papacy. There is no mistake in this fact. However, to find these claims in the authors of the patristics is non-existent. I am often hearing of protestants who are turning to the Catholic Church on the basis of their reading of the early church fathers. I would be embarrassed if I claimed this as a reason to convert. For the early fathers do not recognize a supreme bishop to have the role of shepherding the universal church. I think Catholics need to re-read the apostolic fathers to recognize that no modern day papacy was on anyone’s purview. Absolutely no hint.

The fact that rome had a supreme role in it’s authority to preserve the original deposit of faith does not automatically even demonstrate in seed form the structure of a supreme pope retaining a special place over the whole of the Catholic church. If this was there in the beginning, the apostolic fathers either never mentioned it, or they were not even aware of such a thing.

The early fathers understood Peter to be the “rock” of the Christ’s Church, nothing more. The Church is built off of Peter. There is no dispute about this. However, to stretch this to a continuous static office of papal infallible power of the whole og Christ’s Church is a huge stretch, dangerous.

And yes I would say the moral environment of the Church matters. Why else would Paul order the Corinthians to excommunicate the fornicating man (1 Cor 5)? And his principle is based off the fact that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, therefore purge out the out leaven so that you may be a new lump. Paul understood that sin in the redeemed community can spread, and so there is to be a measure of pastoral accountability of each member, and if sin persists, it must call for excommunication.
 
AuditVocemMeam said:
For a wonderful explanation of the papacy, I recommend the encyclical Satis cognitum by Pope Leo XIII: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Paragraph 13 (I mean the section, “The Roman Pontiffs Possess Supreme Power in the Church Jure Divino”, that starts with “13.”), especially, gives some examples from the early Church of the reality of the papacy. You might need some context, though. Sections 11 and 12 help. But the whole thing is great! I hope it helps 🙂

If individual Catholics are sinners, that has no bearing on whether or not the Catholic faith is true. There’s no logical link. “And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick. I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance” (Luke 5:31-32).
Click to expand...
That part in bold is very true. It reminds me of a heresy called Donatism back in the 400’s. I am reading a book on Church history by Vidmar and he writes that to combat Donatism Augustin taught that the Church is holy, not because its members are holy but because its founnder and purposes are holy. This is not to say that we as Catholics should not be full of love and good works, we should always set good examples, but the power is from the Church. The papacy has had its problems throughout the years but as will all things in the Church you have to have faith.
 
Congrats - I admire your desire for Truth

and those are good questions -

as for the Catholics you see or know that are being horrible examples of Christianity -

maybe you should ask them if they learned that in church… or why do they even bother going to church -

but please don’t judge the Catholic Faith and the bad practices of some Catholics - all sects of Christianity have their bad apples - unfortunately Catholicism being the largest denomination has probably the highest number of these “non practicing Catholics”
 
Appreciate the response:) I think that Donatism is wrong.

However, our Lord Jesus Christ does not let bishops of the Church to allow sin into the community. Listen to 1 Corinthians

It is actually reported that there is*** sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named[a] among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed*. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.**

6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.[c] 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Immorality Must Be Judged

9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
**
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?** 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”[d]

Right in the heart of Paul’s apostolic ministry are apostolic instructions for keeping the community holy. We do not have the right to allow any association between the faithful and the ungodly (who claim to be following the Lord as a brother or sister) who persists in their rebellion against the Lord. The very concept that Paul is here dealing is the fact that the moral behavior of the members of the Church is extremely important to the quality of the community as a whole, hence the command to judge the sinning member, and to excommunicate him.**
 
Yes, of course.

I have also seen some very godly and loving Catholic.

I know that the truthfulness of the Catholic faith does not depend on the moral status of many of it’s members. However, I will say this: It is very odd to me when I see protestant churches who are very zealous for the Lord, who practice Church Discipline, who evangelize the lost, who practice holiness in their lives, and then to be hard to find a Catholic who is the same yet resorts to such higher doctrines of God.
 
The Church is not evil, its the sinners. But dont throw the first stone.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Yes, of course.

I have also seen some very godly and loving Catholic.

I know that the truthfulness of the Catholic faith does not depend on the moral status of many of it’s members. However, I will say this: It is very odd to me when I see protestant churches who are very zealous for the Lord, who practice Church Discipline, who evangelize the lost, who practice holiness in their lives, and then to be hard to find a Catholic who is the same yet resorts to such higher doctrines of God.
Click to expand...
Not everyone has the same amount of zeal. If you see an area the people of the Church is lacking then become Catholic and help the Church out! 👍 It starts with us.
 
I wish to clarify something here.

I want to join the Catholic Church. I have attended Mass at a Local parish near my house. I love the liturgy and the awe that is there. However, I cannot go where my Lord does not want me.

BARRIERS TO GIVING IN:
  1. There cannot be a development of the Papal Office
For a Catholic to say that development , in concept of theory, is allowed and has occurred with respect to the Papal office is to deny it’s establishment from Jesus to Peter from the beginning. Catholics cannot continue to take confidence in the historicity of their form because it is found within the early years of the Church IF we cannot see a Papal Office in force right from the start. Development, or an establishment or a bigger order which occurs later demonstrate the manipulation of man right at the foundation of the papacy.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I wish to clarify something here.

I want to join the Catholic Church. I have attended Mass at a Local parish near my house. I love the liturgy and the awe that is there. However, I cannot go where my Lord does not want me.

BARRIERS TO GIVING IN:
  1. There cannot be a development of the Papal Office
For a Catholic to say that development , in concept of theory, is allowed and has occurred with respect to the Papal office is to deny it’s establishment from Jesus to Peter from the beginning. Catholics cannot continue to take confidence in the historicity of their form because it is found within the early years of the Church IF we cannot see a Papal Office in force right from the start. Development, or an establishment or a bigger order which occurs later demonstrate the manipulation of man right at the foundation of the papacy.
Click to expand...
Not really, the definition of the papacy was something that was there from the beginning of time but is just being clarified by the Church because of problems and questions and heresies that have arisen.
 
Yes I know.

However, if one is to do research to find evidence of this in the early years of the Church, I think it is impossible to see even recognition of a papal office. The apostolic voices concerning their views of Matthew 16, the Church, etc,etc reflect nothing but a historical honor of the church at Rome.
 
The Church is not Scripture only, although the Church would never be against Scripture. It is tradition as well.
 
AuditVocemMeam said:
For a wonderful explanation of the papacy, I recommend the encyclical Satis cognitum by Pope Leo XIII: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Paragraph 13 (I mean the section, “The Roman Pontiffs Possess Supreme Power in the Church Jure Divino”, that starts with “13.”), especially, gives some examples from the early Church of the reality of the papacy. You might need some context, though. Sections 11 and 12 help. But the whole thing is great! I hope it helps 🙂

If individual Catholics are sinners, that has no bearing on whether or not the Catholic faith is true. There’s no logical link. “And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick. I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance” (Luke 5:31-32).
Click to expand...
Great link, I have to check this out. It starts with sector 12 and gives good explanation of what we are talking about here. Must get some rest, good night, God Bless!
 
What do you think it means to say that Rome had a supreme role in its authority to preserve the original deposit of faith? “Rome” can’t do anything by itself. The fact that “Rome” had authority means that the one with authority over Rome - the bishop of Rome, the Pope - had the authority.

All italics are mine:

"I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus — *that is, the bishop of bishops *— issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ " - Tertullian, On Modesty

“[If] any bishop has been judged in some case, and he thinks he has a good case, so that a new trial may be given, if it seems good to you, let us honor the memory of the most holy Apostle, PETER: either let those who have examined the case or the bishops who reside in the next province write to the Roman bishop; and if he should judge that the judicial investigation ought to be repeated, let it be repeated, and let him appoint judges. But if he should determine that the case is such, that what has been finished should not be reopened, his decree shall be confirmed. Is this agreeable to all? The synod replied: It is agreeable.” - Council of Serdica, A.D. 343-344 (Denz. 57b)

“For this will seem to be best and most fitting indeed, if the priests from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the chair of PETER the apostle.” - Council of Serdica’s epistle “Quod semper” (Denz. 57e) - The one in the chair of Peter is the head.

“We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle PETER bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs.” - Pope St. Siricius, A.D. 385 (Denz. 87) - The bishops of Rome succeed Peter.

"Take this as an example, guarding with your sacerdotal office the practices of the fathers you resolve that (they) must not be trampled upon, because they made their decisions not by human, but by divine judgment, so that they thought that nothing whatever, although it concerned separated and remote provinces, should be concluded, unless it first came to the attention of this See, so that what was a just proclamation might be confirmed by the total authority of this See, and from this source … the other churches might assume what [they ought] to teach … " - Pope St. Innocent I, A.D. 417 (Denz. 100)

"[Since] therefore PETER the head is of such great authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, *although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision *… " - Pope St. Zosimus, A.D. 418 (Denz. 109)

“[There] must be no withdrawal from our judgment. For *it has never been allowed *that that be discussed again which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.” - Pope St. Boniface I, A.D. 422 (Denz. 110) - Key word: never.

Unfortunately I’m not very knowledgeable regarding writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, etc.
 
But wouldn’t you say that this sort of talk developed over time? Or would you say that Peter would have been able to understand these statements if someone we to ask him what might happen hypothetically in the future. ?
 
Do you mean, was St. Peter aware of his own primacy? If so, the answer is yes.

John 21:17: “He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

Luke 22:32: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”

And the well-known Matthew 16:18-19…

If Christ told me all of these things, I think I would get the point. 😛

But, with regard to the quotations I gave, for example, Tertullian’s lifetime is pretty early for some random man-made doctrine to have developed all that way from “there’s no papal office” to “the Pope is the bishop of bishops”, the shepherd of shepherds. Don’t you think if some bishop were trying to assert full control over the Church, and he had no basis to do so, people would have realised the problems with his claims? But they obeyed the Pope (see especially the Council quotation I gave).
 
Yes, that was very helpful information. Thank you. That will do alot for me.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I will say this: It is very odd to me when I see protestant churches who are very zealous for the Lord, who practice Church Discipline, who evangelize the lost, who practice holiness in their lives, and then to be hard to find a Catholic who is the same yet resorts to such higher doctrines of God.
Click to expand...
Is this (what I have underlined) perhaps a more general protestant prejudice against Catholics? Because when you actually get to know the people you see that there are many holy Catholics. Another thing to keep in mind is a difference in the way Catholics present themselves. It is a bit more dicreet expression of faith. In my experience protestants tend to be more in your face about it. Converting to Catholicism is a bit of a culture shock for many people.
 
Well it is just that on my side of the family, all went to Catholic school and continue to go to mass, however they are constantly drinking and getting drunk, party at the clubs all night, care nothing for the things of God, never pray, never repent of their sin,etc,etc. And I have seen the same in all our friends at weddings, parties, get togethers… I’ve even seen the priest be at a reception with SO much alcohol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top