Protestants: Why aren't you Catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laurence_of_PA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Curious,

Thousands and thousands of converts have experienced what you experience, and I think very few have converted as a result of being “convinced” by rational arguments. It is God who works in us. He does the “convincing” in whom He chooses.

Simply pray that you will do God’s will.

Verbum
 
I am not Catholic because I cannot, in good conscience, accept all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
Priscilla_Ann said:
I am not Catholic because I cannot, in good conscience, accept all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Sadly enough, neither can many who identify themselves as Catholics. At least your honest. may God bless you…teachccd:)
 
teachccd said:
Sadly enough, neither can many who identify themselves as Catholics. At least your honest. may God bless you…teachccd:)
Click to expand...
There is so much truth in what you speak. I find Catholics who reject Church teachings more difficult than speaking to Protestants.
 
Hi Curious,
Click to expand...
Thousands and thousands of converts have experienced what you experience, and I think very few have converted as a result of being “convinced” by rational arguments. It is God who works in us. He does the “convincing” in whom He chooses.
Click to expand...
Simply pray that you will do God’s will.
Click to expand...
Verbum
Click to expand...
Yeah I know. That still doesn’t stop me from sometimes feeling…
:ehh: :banghead: :crying: :bigyikes: :hypno: :dts:

You know? lol
 
teachccd said:
Sadly enough, neither can many who identify themselves as Catholics. At least your honest. may God bless you…teachccd:)
Click to expand...
You are right. Most of the Catholics I know do not accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. They remain Catholic only because they were raised as Catholics, and give very little thought to what the Catholic church actually teaches. My own sister is a perfect example.
 
Priscilla_Ann said:
You are right. Most of the Catholics I know do not accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. They remain Catholic only because they were raised as Catholics, and give very little thought to what the Catholic church actually teaches. My own sister is a perfect example.
Click to expand...
Catholics who do not practice their faith don’t know what they are missing.
 
SyCarl said:
God has done many new things in the last 2000 years. However I do not believe that one of those things was to change the requirements for salvation. Those are the same now as they were at the beginning of the church age. Did God suddenly decide in 1870 that it was necessary to believe in Papal Infalibility? If it became a requirement then what happened to those who didn’t believe it and died between the time the declaration was made. No instant communications then.
Click to expand...
Those people would only be responsible for what they knew at the time of their deaths.

More importantly, the Church was developing its understanding of infallibility as it relates to the papacy during those 1800 years to the point that she was able to declare this dogma (and those of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception) with certainty. It could also be said that the doctrines were declared infallibly precisely to protect them from erosion of faith in a hostile era.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Those people would only be responsible for what they knew at the time of their deaths.

More importantly, the Church was developing its understanding of infallibility as it relates to the papacy during those 1800 years to the point that she was able to declare this dogma (and those of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception) with certainty. It could also be said that the doctrines were declared infallibly precisely to protect them from erosion of faith in a hostile era.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Doctrine that takes 1800 years to appear is not doctrine that is binding on anyone.
 
I left Catholic church as I could not in good conscience accept all the teachings that the church says must be believed. I had studied history and the bible and found differences that could not be reconciled.
 
kaycee said:
I left Catholic church as I could not in good conscience accept all the teachings that the church says must be believed. I had studied history and the bible and found differences that could not be reconciled.
Click to expand...
Differences that couldn’t be reconciled or Irreconcilable Differences? That sounds like divorce court unless you be specific. Honestly, I thought I’d get specific reasons, contradictions, and inconsistencies, not vague testimonies.

I promise though I won’t argue against any real reasons here, so long as I find any :rolleyes: .

But if there is one thing I would like to add: Just because a group has a plethora of teachings doesn’t mean they’re unnecessary or false, so BE SPECIFIC!
 
Two problems:

I have not got clarity on what is the core of belief for the Catholic Church. In my studies I have found, with regard to the (absolutely vast) Church’s Teachings the following:

(2) Status: What is the status or order of priority of various Church instructions – that is, the Vulgate, Old Testament as interpreted, New Testament as interpreted, Sacred Tradition, Catechism, Policy Statements, Vatican Decrees (Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, Pastoral Letters etc), Doctrine/Dogma, Canon Law, Councils (Niceae, Trent, Vatican I and II), Creeds, Liturgy, Beliefs, Old Covenant, New Covenant, Law of Moses, Beatitudes, Various Extraneous Manuscripts, Exemplars from the Life of Christ/Disciples/ Apostles/Saints and others, Theological Scholarship and Biblical Research, Constitutions, Decrees of Church Fathers, Reports of Vatican Commissions inter alia?

Some issues stand out: contraception, transubstantiation, baptism. Others are less clear, or it is possible that an individual Catholic might not know there is a question.

How does a Catholic know what to know? What takes priority in terms of knowing? By which interpretations/instructions are Catholics bound? It is clearly impossible for any one layperson to know the entirety of the faith, of Catholic dogma, of what is sin and what is error. Is Catholicism ultimately therefore an individual set of beliefs/doctrines picked up (perhaps rather randomly?) by the individual Catholic? (This is not meant to be provocative: it is a question.)

Ultimately I suppose, this comes down to how Catholicism differs from mainline protestantism, except in the wonderful sense that the Catholic Church has archived and disseminated the beliefs of the Christian Faith down through the centuries. This is of course not true of any other denomination.

(2) Extent of Application: To whom does the Church believe its Teachings apply? (Catholic Christians? All Christians? All faiths? Humanity?:
 
What a shame, I read the first post, the thread starter where the poster explained that didn’t want it to be Catholic vs.Prostestant argument, but rather a survey.

Within the first few posts it become an argument! same old arguments trotted out instead of the informative survey it could have been.

This thread is an answer as to why I’m now neither a Protestant or a Catholic.🤷
 
Gareth said:
What a shame, I read the first post, the thread starter where the poster explained that didn’t want it to be Catholic vs.Prostestant argument, but rather a survey.

Within the first few posts it become an argument! same old arguments trotted out instead of the informative survey it could have been.

This thread is an answer as to why I’m now neither a Protestant or a Catholic.🤷
Click to expand...
I think it is important for protestants who might be considering converting to understand some of the basics of Catholicism. I think the questions raised above are in that paradigm. I have no reason to argue with Catholics - but it is perhaps not simply an either or question. I thought these issues with which I grapple might help. Sorry.
 
Darrel said:
Do you think that God has done nothing new in 2000 years? God is love and love is active and moving forward. God established his Church (the CC) and has been doing new things in it all through history. God was never limited to the Bible and it’s scriptures. He may even do something new today if he chooses. The fact that nothing new ever comes from God all through protestant church history is what should be questioned and looked at.

-D
Click to expand...
Darrel,

I still don’t understand from your post why your not Catholic? Could you answer the original question.
 
Laurence_of_PA said:
Differences that couldn’t be reconciled or Irreconcilable Differences? That sounds like divorce court unless you be specific. Honestly, I thought I’d get specific reasons, contradictions, and inconsistencies, not vague testimonies.

I promise though I won’t argue against any real reasons here, so long as I find any :rolleyes: .

But if there is one thing I would like to add: Just because a group has a plethora of teachings doesn’t mean they’re unnecessary or false, so BE SPECIFIC!
Click to expand...
There are many reasons, 1 being, the notion of the Papacy. The 2 camps I see in RCC that exist. Those that say the papacy existed from day one and torture history and scripture to find proof, and the Newman version of development that at least recognized that history does not bear out evidence of a papacy until several hundreds of years later. This theory allows development of almost anything.

The Marian doctrines, doctrinal innovations that must be believed for salvation, Popes that define mortal sins out of thin air (fish friday, mandatory mass attendence), Purgatory, Indulgences, infallibility, synthetic Unity etc…
 
kaycee said:
There are many reasons, 1 being, the notion of the Papacy. The 2 camps I see in RCC that exist. Those that say the papacy existed from day one and torture history and scripture to find proof, and the Newman version of development that at least recognized that history does not bear out evidence of a papacy until several hundreds of years later. This theory allows development of almost anything.

The Marian doctrines, doctrinal innovations that must be believed for salvation, Popes that define mortal sins out of thin air (fish friday, mandatory mass attendence), Purgatory, Indulgences, infallibility, synthetic Unity etc…
Click to expand...
first of all it was never a sin not to eat fish. If you believed Mass was heaven on earth you would think it was a sin to. if someone chose to sleep in rather than be with God and with the Angels and saints. so you should at least see our stand on the mass. If you dont understand the mass start a thread. (Purgatory) well all Christains agree there is a final sense of sanctification when you die. Because Hebrews 12:22-23 talks about the spirits in heaven that have been made perfect.

Are you Perfect? When you are in Heaven will you be?
thats a process it may be instatanious when we see God but its Purgatory. Again Start a thread.

Indulgences I invite you to start a thread. Its very biblical.

Infalliblity. “Whoever hears you hears me” You have a problem with this?

Pope Peter was clearly head of the apostle. Start a thread its very biblical.

Mortal sins you acknowledge there are mortal sins from the thread I started. Dont you wish to know whats mortal? I would.

again start a thread on just one that you havent talked on and invite me in.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top