Question for protestants from a protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter april_hosen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
april_hosen:
Hi scylla,

I’m seeing the connection :)! But I’m sory I’m just FILLED with questions! You said," I believe the apostles, got their understanding of faith from Jesus, and He explained things to them". Alright, well wouldnt it be in the Bible?I mean that pretty important.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Scylla will know exactly what you are asking. I don’t really understand your question but I thought I’d try to help. Jesus had the authority to teach the truth. In Luke 9:1–3, he gives his apostles the authority to do the same. Jesus says whoever listens to them listens to him.(Luke 10:16).

Does that answer your question somewhat?
 
40.png
corpus:
Hi April,

I’ve been looking at the responses to your question. In fact I registered just to answer it. I am a Protestant who wonders why conversion to Catholicism would be necessary. I enjoy fellowship with Catholic Christians just as I do with other Protestants who don’t think the same way as I do on every doctrinal point.

I’m reading a book edited by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J. at the moment “Catholics and Evangelicals: Do They Share a Common Future?” From what I can make out from what I have read so far it looks like the contributors to it conclude that we do. Seems to me that when Jesus prayed that we Christians would be one he didn’t mean just the Catholics.

Given what others have said in answer to your question, it’s the Eucharist that makes all the difference. I don’t agree with the Catholic idea of transubstantiation. I’m not at all sure that Jesus meant that the bread and the wine literally become his body and blood in the Eucharist, any more than he meant he was a literal grapevine and that his Father was a vintner, or that he is a door or literal bread that comes down out of heaven. Still, I do feel that Jesus is present at the communion service - more present than many evangelicals think. I rather like Martin Luther’s idea of consubstantiation.

Judging by what Ludwig Ott writes in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are identical (p. 402). So evidently Jesus is sacrificed again and again in the celebrating of the Eucharist. But the New Testament teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins is final and complete - once and for all time. Protestants feel uneasy about this point of Catholic doctrine because it reminds us of the repeated sacrificial system of the Old Testament.

There are other things I have serious misgivings about too, like the Catholic teaching concerning baptism (necessary for salvation). I’d feel very uncomfortable about joining the Catholic church but can still enjoy some things Catholics have written and, for example, the music from Taizé. We can disagree on the other stuff without being disagreeable.

corpus
Click to expand...
Wow!
You made some many good points! Thank you!!!
 
40.png
Eden:
I’m sure Scylla will know exactly what you are asking. I don’t really understand your question but I thought I’d try to help. Jesus had the authority to teach the truth. In Luke 9:1–3, he gives his apostles the authority to do the same. Jesus says whoever listens to them listens to him.(Luke 10:16).

Does that answer your question somewhat?
Click to expand...
I suppose! But still isnt that important enough to be in the Bible? And if so why isnt it.The Bible is complete, its perfect.The words of Jesus telling the apostles all these things should be in there, right?
 
40.png
april_hosen:
I suppose! But still isnt that important enough to be in the Bible? And if so why isnt it.The Bible is complete, its perfect.The words of Jesus telling the apostles all these things should be in there, right?
Click to expand...
Remember that the Bible isn’t ALL that is needed. Never ever does it say that it’s the sole rule of faith. It actually TELLS the followers to hold to Tradition (Tradition is Sacred Tradition, the teachings held by the Church, as opposed to tradition, traditions held by men)

2 Thessalonians 2

13But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsd] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Also: what “things” are you referring to? Teaching authority?
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
Remember that the Bible isn’t ALL that is needed. Never ever does it say that it’s the sole rule of faith. It actually TELLS the followers to hold to Tradition (Tradition is Sacred Tradition, the teachings held by the Church, as opposed to tradition, traditions held by men)

2 Thessalonians 2

13But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruitsd] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Also: what “things” are you referring to? Teaching authority?
Click to expand...
Huh.
What kinda Bible are you reading out of? Because my Bible something like that but not.

Mine says:
13" But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, bretheren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth.
14 To which He called you by our gospel,for obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ
15 Therefore bretheren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, wether by word or our epistle."

But I have a question. Isnt that directed to all Christians?
 
But Jesus didn’t give us the Bible, the only thing he wrote down for sure was in the dirt, he founded a Church. He also explained things to the apostles and taught them. All the Christians at that time were pretty much united there was no sola scriptura.

He spent 40 days with them after the resurrection, at this time there was absolutely no New Testament in existance. How did the Church function? How did they know how to worship? How did they know how to be organized? This is my point they had no Bible, just the Septuagant. Did they then just base their faith off the scriptures when they had Jesus to show them the way? Doesn’t John mention this.
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
(this does raise another question “not everyone who says Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven”)

This is why I feel so strongly about the errors of basing a faith on someones interpretation of the Bible, which no-one did until more than 1500 years after Jesus.
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

The universal understanding of the faith until about 500 years ago and shared with all ancient Apostolic Churches, Orthodox and the Catholic Church includes the Real Presence. Just go ahead and check out the beliefs of the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Churches or any of the others.
goarch.org/en/ourfaith/sacraments/
copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/index.html

Feel free to ask more questions, we might be straying a bit off topic but hey it is good for learning.

As a side comment I saw someone make a comment regarding the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist which is a common misunderstanding, we do not re-sacrifice Jesus each time at Mass. This is a common accusation that really misrepresents Catholic belief, we do not believe that at all. This is easily understood if you look into it.
Here is a link titled, “Once for all” catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006chap.asp
Any questions or if you need clarification I can explain it for you.

You will find many attacks against the Catholic faith are based on misrepresentations such as this and it is necessary to prayerfully look at these things.
Corpus, I invite you to read the Catholic responses to beliefs such as this as you will find many situations are similar. I myself am a revert from an evangelical church, Calvary Chapel.
I found many of the books did this sort of thing it just takes a little looking into.

God Bless
Scylla

Sorry to post so much I just want to answer your question thoughtfully, but forgive me if there are any errors I have to do this around my kids.
 
40.png
april_hosen:
Hmm,
The thing is I already have a direct relationship with Christ. And this is without the church. I’m a little bit afraid that if I do convert my relationship will become a backseat, to focusing on Priests, the Pope and Mary.I suppose the relationship depends on the person…but goodness, I am just scared out of my mind. Because I know if I were to do this then I would be completely alone. But Ikeep on hearing Gods voice.
Click to expand...
April,

If I may give a bit of testimony, I prayed the sinner’s prayer and received Jesus into my heart when I was fourteen. That established, as you have, a direct relationship with Christ. I joined the Catholic Church about a dozen years ago, when I was about 32. Being Catholic has absolutely not interfered with my direct relationship with Jesus; if anything, it has increased it. The Eucharist lets me be one with Jesus in a physical way as well as spiritually. With Mary and the Saints Jesus introduces me to His mother and a bunch of His friends, and not only do I now see Jesus in Jesus Himself but I also see His reflections in all these other lives. It’s like seeing the sun reflected in a hundred colored pieces of glass as well as directly; the direct sunlight has not gone away, but all these other things have been added.
  • Liberian
 
April from what I have read in your responses it sounds to me like some of the theology of the Catholic church might be a problem for you (the Catholic doctrines about communion and the place of scripture especially). Remember Catholicism is a pretty much an “in for a penny in for a pound” system. You aren’t allowed to pick and choose what parts of the church you believe and don’t. I have the same reservations so you aren’t alone.

To those posting reasons to be Catholic might I humbly ask that this thread not be turned into a "why we believe ___ " thread. Offering an encouraging word and some light clarifications are fine but the thread is getting a bit away from the topic at hand. Most of us protestants have a good handle on the theology of the church and getting into a quote war over differences in interpretations that our respective churches haven’t agreed on in 500 years isn’t productive as far as this threads subject is concerned.

April a good idea might be to visit some churches around your area of different denominations. Again I am a Mennonite and we have the added bonus of partying like it’s 1699!!!
 
Hello all, may the peace and love of our Lord be with you all…

I am just going to tippy toe into the room and drop off a package, please don’t stare, I am sorry for the interruption.🙂

If you would like to listen to what Catholics are suppose to believe, here is a series of talks done by Father William Casey
Put all of those books down, grab a cup of tea and ponder.
Link to EWTN Audio

God Bless you and Jesus keep you,
Joao
 
Thanks for the welcome, Eden, and for the link to the article on the Eucharist. I’m happy to be corrected. Thank you too, Scylla, for your response. April, we’d better look at the article on the Mass.

corpus
 
40.png
Shlemele:
April from what I have read in your responses it sounds to me like some of the theology of the Catholic church might be a problem for you (the Catholic doctrines about communion and the place of scripture especially). Remember Catholicism is a pretty much an “in for a penny in for a pound” system. You aren’t allowed to pick and choose what parts of the church you believe and don’t. I have the same reservations so you aren’t alone.

To those posting reasons to be Catholic might I humbly ask that this thread not be turned into a "why we believe ___ " thread. Offering an encouraging word and some light clarifications are fine but the thread is getting a bit away from the topic at hand. Most of us protestants have a good handle on the theology of the church and getting into a quote war over differences in interpretations that our respective churches haven’t agreed on in 500 years isn’t productive as far as this threads subject is concerned.

April a good idea might be to visit some churches around your area of different denominations. Again I am a Mennonite and we have the added bonus of partying like it’s 1699!!!
Click to expand...
I would like to add that while you do have to believe everything the Church teaches to be in Communion with Rome; it doesn’t mean that you won’t struggle with them. I don’t think there hasn’t been a Saint alive who hasn’t struggled at one point with some of the teachings. Look at the Apostle Paul, he was citizen of Rome and a Jew who persecuted the early Christians until he converted. If one had no doubt in their mind, it wouldn’t be faith, God gave us a brain to use and we must use it, and that’s what’s great about this Church. We are all sinners, and as such, we can’t be 100% sure of everything all the time or it would make us God and God realizes that and the reason he gave us the Blessed Sacraments.

By the way April, in the KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Click to expand...
(there goes Sola Scriptura…)

So that isn’t just in Catholic Bibles. 😉
 
40.png
corpus:
I’m not at all sure that Jesus meant that the bread and the wine literally become his body and blood in the Eucharist, any more than he meant he was a literal grapevine and that his Father was a vintner, or that he is a door or literal bread that comes down out of heaven. Still, I do feel that Jesus is present at the communion service - more present than many evangelicals think.
Click to expand...
If one meditates deeply on these images – especially on the vine/branches/pruning images of John 15 in connection with John 6, they unify the concept of Real Presence in a profound way. Perhaps earlier posts on this thread which clarify that the Real Presence is not muscular and corpuscular might help you understand that the bread and wine do not in any way appear changed to the senses.
Judging by what Ludwig Ott writes in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are identical (p. 402). So evidently Jesus is sacrificed again and again in the celebrating of the Eucharist. But the New Testament teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins is final and complete - once and for all time. Protestants feel uneasy about this point of Catholic doctrine because it reminds us of the repeated sacrificial system of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Ah. If the Sacrifice of the Mass is identical with the Sacrifice of Calvary, then it is not a repeated Sacrifice but a participation in the once for all Sacrifice of the Cross. There is only one High Priest. The priest at the altar participates in the Priesthood of Christ; in effect, because the Godhead is beyond time, and because he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the Sacrifice of Calvary is eternal: once for all. In the Mass, we penetrate the veil of time into the eternity of God and share in his glorified Body and Blood. Do we understand it? No. That is the essence of mystery.

But PLEASE, beloved, do not perpetuate this misconception that Catholics recrucify Christ in the celebration of the Mass.
 
April: Last Easter God thoroughly touched me and gave me the consolation of the deep relationship with Him. Your words described it so very well. Last Easter I was singing in a Mennonite-Brethren choir, and ministering. Last Easter becoming Catholic was inconceivable. Last Easter I was a former Baptist pastor that God was drawing back to ministry.
This Easter I became Catholic. :bigyikes: 🙂
The cautions about cultural differences you have read here are significant and to be considered. Your theological concerns will be resolved by scripture and the Holy Spirit opening your eyes to His truth and His plans for you.mn
I gotta go so I’ll leave you this:
  1. The pattern of how God reveals himself and communicated Himself has , throughout the scriptures and history been ‘incarnational’ . His Symbols are Real, His Word is His only eternally begotten Son, His messages are through the prophets-their lives, psalms, stories, sermons . [therefore the church’s history, practice and theology is comprehensible and not so foriegn]
    2.The Idea of being united with Christ, being one with Christ: The Mystical union. You are experiencing its comfort.Now consider its New Testament pedigree: reread the NT a few times [or listen via MP3] and discover how central the theology of that truth governs all they do,and are… From there you will see the communion of the saints and the salvific impact of your life and sufferings.
    In the Catholic Church Jesus Christ will still be your breath.
    He is my breath too. He is my food. And He is my Life.
    God Bless you.
Wayne
 
40.png
WynCatholic:
… Last Easter I was a former Baptist pastor that God was drawing back to ministry.
This Easter I became Catholic…
Click to expand...
Wayne,
Have you contacted the Coming Home Network yet (chnetwork.org/ )? They are always on the lookout for good conversion stories, and have helped tons of Protestant clergy come home to the Catholic Church…who knows, you might just wind up on their TV show (chnetwork.org/ewtn.htm )!
God bless,
RyanL
 
I now will bow out of this thread as I have come in off topic, it is just that there was something that I felt had to be addressed.

But maybe I do qualify to post in this thread as I came back to the Church from an evangelical background. If you do have any questions feel free to ask April \ anyone else too.

Have a nice weekend.

God Bless
Scylla
 
What is key to remember is that the bible was not around for centuries after Christ left phisically left earth…before that, all the teachings of the church were passed down as oral traditions from the apostles who learned directly from Christ. The bible compiles those teachings and writings from those inspired by God, ensuring that they are not lost or dilluted with time…it ensures that they are eternal and can never die, and are still around for generations to come 2000 years later. It maintains their authority, so that time and years cannot change or manipulate them…but that is why we must follow the bible AND the traditions of the apostles, because they both are of Christ, and neither is complete without the other.In Him,
Britty
 
40.png
CheesusPowerKid:
What is key to remember is that the bible was not around for centuries after Christ left phisically left earth
Click to expand...
That’s simply bunk. The OT was around from the beginning, and the entire NT was written within a century after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Sure, there were debates about the exact limits of the canon–right up to the 16th century for that matter–but the Bible was certainly available. This is the single worst argument used by Catholics. It only discredits Catholicism in the eyes of Bible-loving Protestants–not to speak of anyone who knows anything about the history of the canon.

Edwin
 
True, the OT and NT were written by then, but it wasn’t until around 400 that people decided on which were CORRECT. Remember there were many fabricated BS gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, etc) and it wasn’t until around 400 (sorry I don’t remember the exact date) that the early Church finally got together to say which Gospels were Truth, and which weren’t. Also, even after Jesus died, there was still a period of time when the Gospels WEREN’T written, so the early Church would have still had to use Tradition.
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
True, the OT and NT were written by then, but it wasn’t until around 400 that people decided on which were CORRECT.
Click to expand...
You mean until they worked out all the issues relating to some of the more marginal books. The four Gospels were regarded as canonical by the 2nd century. Paul’s epistles are referred to as Scripture in II Peter. This is the same flawed argument that certain liberals use to undermine any kind of orthodoxy. The fact that people were arguing over Hebrews and James and II Peter doesn’t mean that there was no functional Bible. And as I said, the OT was regarded as inspired right from the beginning. There has never been a Church without a Bible.
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
Remember there were many fabricated BS gospels (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, etc) and it wasn’t until around 400 (sorry I don’t remember the exact date) that the early Church finally got together to say which Gospels were Truth, and which weren’t.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t that simple. It was a gradual process. There was some uncertainty about some books, true. But that hardly amounts to there being no Bible. If you look at the various lists from the second century on, you’ll be struck at how similar they are.
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
Also, even after Jesus died, there was still a period of time when the Gospels WEREN’T written, so the early Church would have still had to use Tradition.
Click to expand...
If you seriously think that this poses a problem for Protestants, then you don’t understand Protestantism. Protestants don’t deny that during the NT period Apostolic Tradition was oral. The claim is that during the first century all Apostolic Tradition was written down. This is not a self-refuting or incoherent claim. There is no easy way to refute it.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top