J
johnnyjones
Guest
As a former fundamentalist and revert it’s all about, “but the bible says”. Thats it.
- Status
P
pmccombs
Guest
It’s so easy for some people to see the truth in the Catholic Church!
The reason it is baffling as to why everyone can’t see it is because people aren’t the same. Would you believe it if I said that there are many in my church who think it’s easy to see the truth of it? Yet it’s also easy for those outside of it to see the error!Some people study the “history of Christianity” and find that it supports Catholicism. Others study the same history and find that it supports Protestantism. Still others are confirmed by the research that Mormonism must be correct. And still others consider the history of Christianity and are convinced that it is yet another man-made religion and nothing more.
I’m unwilling to believe that the majority of people in any of these camps are dumb, brainwashed, etc. At worst (or should I say at best?), many of them are traditionalists and are not terribly interested in the arguments. But there are many sincere and very intelligent believers of Protestantism that regard Catholics in the same way that the “baffled” yet equally intelligent Catholic regards the Protestant.
We have different biases, traditions, understandings, cultural norms, and so forth; and all of these things inform and contribute to our interpretations, expectations, hopes, and desires. The evidence does not weigh the same on all of us.It’s only possible to reason with someone, and to persuade him, if you’ve taught him a new language, so to speak, and have already brought him into a new fold. The mind usually follows the heart in these matters. For the most part, Protestants are who they are because of who the other people around them are. Those among them who care to reflect further on their faith often find plenty of data points in the evidence to sufficiently confirm their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs happen to be.
If it were not so, everyone would belong to the same religion or none at all. As it is, religious experience is quite similar among those of most (all?) religions, in spite of the varying content of the beliefs they espouse.
M
mexolic
Guest
Several years ago, I was telling a co-worker about my confirmation. He’s a former Catholic-turned Protestant. He asked me why Catholics worship the saints. I corrected his misunderstanding. Later on, I was wondering why he didn’t ask questions about the Catholic faith before leaving the church. I think Protestants, Jehovah"s Witnesses, etc. proselytize to Catholics who have no real understanding of their faith. These Catholics will believe their arguments about why the Catholic church is wrong. Catholics need to be equipped with the knowledge of their faith to see the errors of the other side.
J
jpink1019
Guest
the bible even encourages us as christians to be ready to answer for our faith.
“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,” 1 peter 3:15
thats another things about protestants i noticed while growing up, that memorizing bible verses and reading often was VERY encouraged.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Patriots? :tsktsk: Sorry,but I have no respect for a team who was caught cheating!Great questions, and some great answers! I always find it amazing that there are so many non-Catholics here.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Why Catholics worship saints? I would have asked him to show me one Catholic document stating Catholics are to worship saints? No wonder he left…clueless about Catholicism.
B
BListon
Guest
I agree completely. I knew more about Catholicism whenever I was Protestant, than most cradle Catholics did. I asked my now ex-girlfriend if she was a Christian, and she said “no I’m Catholic.”:doh2:
E
enickman
Guest
How could anyone study the history of Christianity and say it supports Protestantism? Can they trace their church all the way back to Christ? Can they disagree they all (for the most part) broke from the Catholic Church around the 16th century? Obviously people have biases but that isn’t an excuse to neglect the truth. Faith and salvation are such huge matters that I find it dangerous anyone would play willfully ignorant when searching for truth. Out of pure curiosity, how is it easy to see the Mormon church is right and the Catholics have had it all wrong for close to 2000 years?It’s so easy for some people to see the truth in the Catholic Church!
Some people study the “history of Christianity” and find that it supports Catholicism. Others study the same history and find that it supports Protestantism. Still others are confirmed by the research that Mormonism must be correct. And still others consider the history of Christianity and are convinced that it is yet another man-made religion and nothing more.
I’m unwilling to believe that the majority of people in any of these camps are dumb, brainwashed, etc. At worst (or should I say at best?), many of them are traditionalists and are not terribly interested in the arguments. But there are many sincere and very intelligent believers of Protestantism that regard Catholics in the same way that the “baffled” yet equally intelligent Catholic regards the Protestant.
It’s only possible to reason with someone, and to persuade him, if you’ve taught him a new language, so to speak, and have already brought him into a new fold. The mind usually follows the heart in these matters. For the most part, Protestants are who they are because of who the other people around them are. Those among them who care to reflect further on their faith often find plenty of data points in the evidence to sufficiently confirm their beliefs, no matter what those beliefs happen to be.
If it were not so, everyone would belong to the same religion or none at all. As it is, religious experience is quite similar among those of most (all?) religions, in spite of the varying content of the beliefs they espouse.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The cause of my being Protestant is I was raised by Protestant parents. Like many people I’ve stuck to what I was raised in. Anyone with any respect for their parents and tradition will find it difficult to change their religious membership. That does not mean it is impossible or that they shouldn’t.
I remain Protestant for a few reasons. The first could be that no Catholic has ever evangelized me. Granted I live in an area of the South where there are not many Catholics. But I’ve personally known quite a few Catholics. I can not recall a single instance of a Catholic sharing their faith with me. And I can’t recall a single instance of being invited to a Catholic Church (outside of a couple of weddings). I have had Evangelicals and Baptists share their faith with me. I’m pretty sure I’ve been invited to church by some of these people, though I can’t recall specifically right now so I dont want to be definitive.
I have learned about Catholicism on my own through reading. I remain Protestant because I am not yet convinced of the power of the Pope. Specifically I mean his jurisdiction and power regarding doctrine and other bishops. I do think that as the Bishop of Rome he certainly has a place above other bishops. I’m just not sure that role is as the Catholic Church views it. If I thought the Bishop of Rome had this role then I’d have to be in communion with him.
I’d also have to say that the direction the Catholic Church has taken since Vatican II causes me pause. One change has been a more welcoming attitude towards Protestants. This is good and attracts me to the church. On the other hand it seems to have led some in the Catholic Church to abandon the very things that help to show truth to the claim that the Catholic Church is the one, true, unchanging church, free from doctrinal error. I realize there can be a difference between official church teaching and practice and that of individual church leaders and members. Nonetheless some of what I read about causes me difficulty.
I remain Protestant for a few reasons. The first could be that no Catholic has ever evangelized me. Granted I live in an area of the South where there are not many Catholics. But I’ve personally known quite a few Catholics. I can not recall a single instance of a Catholic sharing their faith with me. And I can’t recall a single instance of being invited to a Catholic Church (outside of a couple of weddings). I have had Evangelicals and Baptists share their faith with me. I’m pretty sure I’ve been invited to church by some of these people, though I can’t recall specifically right now so I dont want to be definitive.
I have learned about Catholicism on my own through reading. I remain Protestant because I am not yet convinced of the power of the Pope. Specifically I mean his jurisdiction and power regarding doctrine and other bishops. I do think that as the Bishop of Rome he certainly has a place above other bishops. I’m just not sure that role is as the Catholic Church views it. If I thought the Bishop of Rome had this role then I’d have to be in communion with him.
I’d also have to say that the direction the Catholic Church has taken since Vatican II causes me pause. One change has been a more welcoming attitude towards Protestants. This is good and attracts me to the church. On the other hand it seems to have led some in the Catholic Church to abandon the very things that help to show truth to the claim that the Catholic Church is the one, true, unchanging church, free from doctrinal error. I realize there can be a difference between official church teaching and practice and that of individual church leaders and members. Nonetheless some of what I read about causes me difficulty.
T
Taestron
Guest
Actually, we trace our history right back to Jesus as well. Just because we split from the Catholic Church does not mean we reject the 1500 years of shared history. But I do agree that studying Church history makes it difficult to defend Protestantism. However, look at this from our perspective. We never have claimed to have a monopoly on being the one true Church (with some exceptions); Christians of all denominations make up the Church. I realize that there are problems with this view, but I want to stay on topic.
So when I look at the events of 1054, I don’t see one Church retaining the title “the one true Church.” I see two sides of the Church being split apart while each equally represent a part of the true Church. So IMHO, the Catholic Church lost the right to claim the authority of the Church that Christ established until the time it reunites with the Orthodox Church.
E
enickman
Guest
So you trace your history back through the Church? How does that trace your new broken off church all the way back? You have never claimed to be the one true church. Okay. But how could you make that claim when you admitted you broke off from the original Church? How can different sects that disagree with the original Church, and then all the other broken up churches, make up the Church? A church is united in its belief. Hundreds of different sects believing different things does not make up any church. The best you can do is slap them all with the title Christian.
Why do the events in 1054 rule out the Church from being the one Christ established? That schism was mostly a big misunderstanding with a lot of egos involved. Its too bad its taken close to 1000 years to get back together, I agree. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the Church.
E
enickman
Guest
You’re right. I would say all churches (that I know of) baptize. But there is more than that. Doctrines, Dogmas, Traditions, traditions, Authority, the list goes on. Baptism is a huge deal I know, but there is more than that.
*speaking for Taestron, but the Schism calls into question where authority really is.
I think to say that the Schism wasa misunderstanding underestimates some very serious issues.*
What serious issues am I missing? From my brief understanding of the split, there was a lot of tension between the east and west due to emperors, patriarchs, traditions, etc. Rome sent some delegates to patch things up, the delegates were treated bad, feelings were hurt, an excommunication was made, and both sides left unhappy. And that’s not even when the schism fully occurred. It’s not like they had internet and it was all over MSN. It was complete later in the 1400s when the Byzantine empire collapsed, then due to pressure from outside sources they finally split with Rome. So where exactly does that call to question where authority is?
P
pmccombs
Guest
Oh, I suppose the Protestants study the history of Christianity, find that through imperfect men it fell into corruption, and that God raised his hand in reformation such that the gates of Hell should not prevail against His Church. I’m sure you can find Protestant intellectuals who can fill you in on all the perfectly plausible details.
And I suppose the Mormons study the history of Christianity, find that it fell into apostasy, and that God raised his hand in reformation, and then later in restoration, such that the gates of Hell should not prevail against His Church. I’m sure you can find Mormon intellectuals who can fill you in on all the perfectly plausible details.
Naturally the Catholics study the History of Christianity, find that there has been no apostasy nor corruption ever, and that the Church has never been through the gates of Hell in the first place. I’m sure you can find Catholic intellectuals who can fill you in on all the perfectly plausible details.
And they all think their own view of the matter constitutes the “truth” and wonder, out of pure curiosity, how in the world can the others be so “willfully ignorant!”
Well, I don’t know. All I know is that religious people everywhere seem to think their own stories are perfectly obvious and true, and whenever little holes and chinks appear, legions of super-smart apologists swarm to debunk and fill in the gaps with all the right answers.
And that’s why there are Protestants (Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, etc.), even really smart and thoughtful ones that know all about history and so forth.
C
Contarini
Guest
Because they find *all *expressions of Christianity to have flaws, not just practical but doctrinal. There are some Protestants who think that doctrinally speaking the Protestant confessions have no flaws. But more common today is the view that we need “continual reformation,” continually returning to Scripture to check up on our doctrines and practices and improve them.
This is not a view that is simply refuted by history. In a sense it’s more in keeping with the evidence–that is, it has less to explain away–than the Catholic view.
The problem with it is that it leads either to doctrinal relativism, or to a questionably consistent reliance on Christian tradition for certain “essentials” while rejecting it in other ways, or to a privileging of contemporary Christianity as providing the best context for interpreting Scripture, which is wholly unconvincing. But these aren’t, strictly speaking, historical problems. A strong attachment to historical continuity will make one disposed to see flaws in this Protestant approach and to take those flaws seriously (that’s certainly been the case for me), but the study of history itself may actually favor this kind of highly critical approach.
Certainly. Through pre-Reformation Catholicism (at least for the most part–there were other groups like the Waldenses, but these clearly were not Protestant and certainly don’t get you “all the way back”).
They broke from what Christians in communion with Rome call the Catholic Church. Whether that is the correct definition is a theological and not merely a historical definition–it cannot be solved simply by an appeal to history, in other words.
Edwin
S
stewstew03
Guest
Does this statement include you as well?
T
Taestron
Guest
I would say that what makes up a Church is communion and not belief. Belief is very important, so much so that if you hold or not hold certain beliefs you can lose communion with the Church. But are Catholics not allowed to hold to a variety of beliefs if there is no teaching? Catholics are not united in these beliefs but still make up the communion of the Church. The question then becomes which beliefs are the ones that are necessary for communion. I’ll not attempt to answer that question here, but I will say that many Protestants would say that when we lost normal communion with the Bishop of Rome, we still are united by baptism.
That is pretty much what I was trying to say.
To say it was a misunderstanding implies that both sides of the schism essentially agree. The problem is they didn’t and still don’t to this day. There are very real disagreements as to what authority the Bishop of Rome has (for example, does the Pope have the authority to call an ecumenical council with only the bishops of Italy?). Yes egos and tempers exacerbated the problem, but the problem is very much real. And the solution is not simple or else the schism would have been healed by now. But in answer to your question, because the schism was about authority, it calls into question the authority of the Catholic Church. Can we really say that the Pope speaks ex cathedra when a large portion of the world’s bishops are not in communion with him? Why should Protestants just accept the authority of the Pope when godly men have rejected this authority for nearly 1000 years now and have been no worse for the wear? So, if the Orthodox Church can reject the Catholic understanding of the authority of the Pope and still retain their status as part of Christ’s Church (as they seem to in my eyes) then Protestants can as well. Now whether or not my particular branch of Protestantism has replaced the Pope with a viable alternative:shrug:
S
Sixpence
Guest
It’s at least as much a socio-cultural and philosophical matter as it is a doctrinal issue. There generally is some of both, of course.
For me, the central doctrinal dispute is baptismal regeneration. I have been baptized. God has also regenerated me. These things did not happen at anywhere close to the same time. The nature of grace is another issue that looms large, and of course the sacraments come right along with that.
On a more socio-cultural level, Rome is not my home, nor can it possibly be home for every Christian in the world. What is it with the connection that is made between “Rome my home” and unity? What is so hard about bringing people from different homes into unity? You believe you are in union with everyone at your parish, but you must have noticed that you don’t all return home to some giant compound where you practice communal living. You have different homes- yet you have union with each other. This really is not a difficult concept.
And then at some other level- maybe one of governance- I understand the desire to have an infallible referee to whom everyone is accountable, but every referee needs to be accountable to someone too. Quite a few of the major financial scandals that have rocked the world of late have much in common as far as the root problem- certain major figures have been able to act as both a superstar player and as a referee in the game that they play. I very much doubt that anyone would deny that the bishop of Rome is a major player in Christianity. (Understatement? Yes!) So what do we know about major players? Should they also be the head referee who is ultimately accountable to no one else on planet Earth? No! That is completely unacceptable.
So there’s a lot going on here. Everyone is a little unique. It’s just like with the reasons why people are Catholic- certain things come up a lot and some are held in common by nearly everyone, but there’s some variety to it as well. It’s a big, complicated picture you’re looking at which includes churches that are one or two steps removed from the CC and for reasons that are clearly defined if a little complex, and then there’s churches that are so far removed that their members hardly know what the CC is. And there’s other stuff in between. But grace and authority are a couple of common threads that you’ll see a lot of.
P
pmccombs
Guest
Indeed it does!
Only, I assume the rather paradoxical creed that the only thing certain is that nothing can be known for certain.
B
BListon
Guest
Whenever I was Protestant, I was always told about how the Church always “abused it’s power.” Ex.( The Inquisition, Burning of Joan of Arc., sex abuse cases, crusade Etc.)
- Status