Protestants, what's holding you back from coming to the Catholic Church?

[EnglishTeacher]

This is exactly what I am talking about.

The tone espoused in your post seems to indicate the belief that I am either too naive or ignorant to understand. Essentially it strikes me as the position of “The Catholic Church is so obviously the one true Church that to think otherwise is simply astonishing and absurd.”

For the record, I’ve been quite charitable to the Catholic Church in my participation in the discussions of this forum. But I’m getting increasingly exasperated by what I perceive to be a “we’re Catholic and thus we know better” attitude. Few are the attempts in which Catholics attempt to understand the Protestant side of things, instead of dismissing it entirely before expounding the Catholic position. At least from what I’ve seen on here, lately.

I am sorry if you have encountered this attitude frequently. But may I suggest that it is probably only a very small minority of Catholics who project this attitude? On these forums, I would estimate that at least half of the Catholic posters are converts or reverts, so we definitely understand the “Protestant side of things.” But I’m sure that we could all stand to use a little more charity and remember that there was a time when we struggled with the teachings that are now so clear to us.

Feel free to PM me if you ever want to discuss anything without starting a forum thread. (And I’m sure that there are other posters who would be happy to do the same.)

 

[stewstew03]

1. IMHO the Catholic Marian doctrines appear to be the product of pious imagination with a starting popint around the middle of the 2nd century…getting ever more grandiose from then on.

That’s like saying “Protestant altar calls are the product of pious imagination with a starting point around the 18th century…” The phrase “Marian dogma” refers to a set of Catholic principles, not one doctrine in particular. Are you talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Immaculate conception? Her assumption? Do you have examples of Marian dogma that appear to be the “product of pious imagination?” An operational definition of “pious imagination” might help as well.

1. the view WRT the real presence at the Lord’s Supper was varied and hardly unanimous.

Do you mean “unanimous” in the way protestant doctrine is unanimous? Or…

…even Augustine did not hold to a real bodily presence.

Do you have a primary source to support this claim? I’m not talking about a priest that teaches at a Catholic university, or a nun from your high school, I’m talking about Augustine’s own writings.

1. Indulgences and the whole economics of grace being earned, stored and doled out like a commodity

Click here to read a tract titled “Myths About Indulgences.”

 

[cprice0129]

I am held back because I have worries about my husband and children. My husband would never tell me I couldn’t convert, but he also would tell me that our children have to remain Presbyterian. I’m not sure how that would work out and so I haven’t gone to a parish to talk about conversion. I do my best to follow Catholic teachings and customs that I know about to the best of my ability but am not Catholic and attend and participate fully at my Presbyterian Church.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Is it because you don’t agree with Catholic Church teaching, morals, traditions, worship, etc…?

Or…

Is it something like *“I don’t have a Catholic Church near me”, “I never really thought about it”, “I’m born a non-Catholic so I’m not comfortable with change”, *etc… ?

I think in most cases they simply don’t think about it. There are some Protestant outfits that are virulently anti-Catholic, but I think that most Protestants are happy where they are, and simply don’t even think about joining the Catholic Church.

Frankly, it’s God’s job to get them to think about it. If He really wants His church reunified, then that’s His problem with all due respect. He’s had 1000 years to do something about the Orthodox split and 500 years to do something about the Protestant split, and so far He hasn’t done much.

Don’t get me wrong - I think the Catholic Church is CLOSEST to the Truth, and I’m a former Protestant. But if God is serious about reunifying the Church, then He’s going to have to be a lot more forceful about it than He has been. Until then, why should Protestants or Orthodox bother?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not Catholic simply because I believe the Orthodox are more faithful to the faith of the fathers, and I don’t believe that the idea of a divinely instituted hierarchy above the level of bishop is consistent with history or the biblical account of the life of the early church based on the book of acts and the epistles.

 

[Mickey]

I am not Catholic simply because I believe the Orthodox are more faithful to the faith of the fathers, and I don’t believe that the idea of a divinely instituted hierarchy above the level of bishop is consistent with history or the biblical account of the life of the early church based on the book of acts and the epistles.

Ditto.

 

[gcnuss]

What’s holding me back?

First and foremost, I don’t see a need to become Catholic. I am fully convinced that, as a Lutheran, I am a member of the church that our Lord founded even if I am not subject to the Bishop of Rome.

Second, as a Lutheran pastor, I have difficulty contemplating joining a church which declares that my ordination is invalid and that I cannot celebrate a valid Eucharist. I believe, with all my heart and soul, that the Body and Blood of our Lord are present in a Lutheran celebration of the Eucharist. If I believed otherwise, I could no longer be a Lutheran.

These are my thoughts in a rather brief form. I do pray for the unity of the Church Militant that it might reflect the unity of the Church Triumphant.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The final epiphany

Funny…

 

[dontknow]

What’s holding me back?

First and foremost, I don’t see a need to become Catholic. I am fully convinced that, as a Lutheran, I am a member of the church that our Lord founded even if I am not subject to the Bishop of Rome.

Second, as a Lutheran pastor, I have difficulty contemplating joining a church which declares that my ordination is invalid and that I cannot celebrate a valid Eucharist. I believe, with all my heart and soul, that the Body and Blood of our Lord are present in a Lutheran celebration of the Eucharist. If I believed otherwise, I could no longer be a Lutheran.

These are my thoughts in a rather brief form. I do pray for the unity of the Church Militant that it might reflect the unity of the Church Triumphant.

Thank you for saying this! I totally agree with you - not that what I say holds any weight or merit to anyone - especially God.

The more I learn about the Lutheran Faith, the more I think that’s where I belong.

 

[Nicea325]

Thank you for saying this! I totally agree with you - not that what I say holds any weight or merit to anyone - especially God.

The more I learn about the Lutheran Faith, the more I think that’s where I belong.

Why?

 

[Mickey]

I have difficulty contemplating joining a church which declares that my ordination is invalid.

That would be a matter of Apostolic Succession.

 

[dontknow]

Why?

I won’t go off an a vent here but let’s say there’s many elements I can’t believe. I’m not going to post much but let’s start with the Pope - who I do not believe is for one minute infallible.

I’ll leave it there. Thanks for asking.

 

[Nicea325]

I won’t go off an a vent here but let’s say there’s many elements I can’t believe. I’m not going to post much but let’s start with the Pope - who I do not believe is for one minute infallible.

I’ll leave it there. Thanks for asking.

Understandable,but let me ask you something:

The writers of the NT…were the fallible when they wrote?

 

[Safia]

My reasons can best be seen from this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8713535#post8713535 , but basically, it is ecclesiology, specifically claims of the Bishop of Rome regarding the election/appointment of Bishops, claims about universal ordinary jurisdiction and supremacy over the rest of the world’s bishops (such as during the time of the Pentarchy); the inability to call the Pope to account in Council as in to, sit in judgement upon him, or to depose a sitting pope for heresy; claims to infallibility in doctrine when speaking ex cathedra (despite all the restrictions on when said office is exercised) I see as stumbling blocks on the route to reunion. I do agree though, with the Agreed Statement “The Gift of Authority” of ARCIC II, but in essence, I have not been convicted by the Holy Ghost, that the Office of the Papacy, as currently exercised is necesssary or required for Christian unity (he’s still the sole Patriarch in the West though, despite claims of Moscow to the contrary )

Have you read any Chesterton?

 

[Safia]

I won’t go off an a vent here but let’s say there’s many elements I can’t believe. I’m not going to post much but let’s start with the Pope - who I do not believe is for one minute infallible.

I’ll leave it there. Thanks for asking.

You do know, right, that the Pope isn’t always infallible – he is so only in matters of ex cathedra?

 

[Safia]

What’s holding me back?

I am fully convinced that, as a Lutheran, I am a member of the church that our Lord founded even if I am not subject to the Bishop of Rome.

Would you agree with me, logically, that insofar as doctrinal views between Lutherans and Catholics differ, both of these churches can’t be right?

And, if that is the case, only one of the two churches can be Truth, and the Church that Christ founded (if either)?

I’d agree with you that we’re both Christian, but no one who has read the Church Fathers and early writers can deny that Christ had a vision for a particular Church – which we either accept and live, or deny.

And what makes Luther any better than the Pope? The Pope isn’t infallible always.

Second, as a Lutheran pastor, I have difficulty contemplating joining a church which declares that my ordination is invalid …]

Are you sure that this reasoning doesn’t stem from pride? (I don’t mean to be crude.)

And have you considered the Church’s reasoning? Even if you don’t accept the premise, The Catholic Church is the True Church, you should still understand the reasoning that, Christ instituted the True Church, and the Church has infallibly declared a particular approach to its ordination.

What you should be concerned with is not yourself but with the Truth.

I believe, with all my heart and soul, that the Body and Blood of our Lord are present in a Lutheran celebration of the Eucharist.

Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.

Has a Lutheran minister ever experienced a Eucharistic miracle?

And who gave you the right to celebrate? Man.

 

[gcnuss]

Would you agree with me, logically, that insofar as doctrinal views between Lutherans and Catholics differ, both of these churches can’t be right?

It depends on what doctrinal issues you look at. Certainly, doctrines (or dogmas) that relate to theological issues, e.g., to the Holy Trinity or to the two natures of Christ aren’t in question. Issues about how the church is managed here on earth don’t fall into the same areas of certainty.

And, if that is the case, only one of the two churches can be Truth, and the Church that Christ founded (if either)?

Again, I differentiate between the theological and administrative aspects of the Church.

I’d agree with you that we’re both Christian, but no one who has read the Church Fathers and early writers can deny that Christ had a vision for a particular Church – which we either accept and live, or deny.

And I rejoice that we are both Christians. however, I have not been convinced that our Lord left behind an immutable organization chart for the Church.

And what makes Luther any better than the Pope? The Pope isn’t infallible always.

I would not claim that Luther was better than the Pope – well, maybe in comparison to Leo X a case might be made. On the other hand, I have great respect for some of the Popes, especially John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Are you sure that this reasoning doesn’t stem from pride? (I don’t mean to be crude.)

Is it pride to accept what one’s church body teaches?

And have you considered the Church’s reasoning? Even if you don’t accept the premise, The Catholic Church is the True Church, you should still understand the reasoning that, Christ instituted the True Church, and the Church has infallibly declared a particular approach to its ordination.

What you should be concerned with is not yourself but with the Truth.

At this point, I can only say that I accept the authority of the church body to which I belong. I realize that you do not believe it has that authority.

Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.

And just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it untrue.

Has a Lutheran minister ever experienced a Eucharistic miracle?

Not that I’m aware of but I don’t think that has much relevance to this discussion.

And who gave you the right to celebrate? Man.

I understand that your statement is in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, as a Lutheran I am bound to accept Lutheran teaching.

 

[dontknow]

You do know, right, that the Pope isn’t always infallible – he is so only in matters of ex cathedra?

Yes, I do know that is what is taught to us to believe.

 

[Erich]

First and foremost, I don’t see a need to become Catholic. I am fully convinced that, as a Lutheran, I am a member of the church that our Lord founded even if I am not subject to the Bishop of Rome.

We know there are doctrinal differences between Catholics and Lutherans. But we also know this is not what our Lord had in mind when he founded His Church.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. We know, from 1 Cor 11:18-19, that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity? This whole business of ignoring doctrinal differences within Protestantism has no biblical basis whatsoever.

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? The answer, of course, is “Yes.” Paul says to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3). Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

 

[Erich]

And I rejoice that we are both Christians. however, I have not been convinced that our Lord left behind an immutable organization chart for the Church.

I understand that your statement is in accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, as a Lutheran I am bound to accept Lutheran teaching.

But you’re not bound to remain Lutheran for the rest of your life

I would challenge you to read By What Authority? A Challenge to Protestant Pastors