Questions from a Protestant Who Doth Protest a Little Bit

[Chereek]

Ergo John Henry Newman’s phrase he made popular while he was still a Protestant

“to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”

Haha, exactly.

for 20 years, I’ve asked the following question with no answer …yet. And I’ve asked everyone. Particularly the Orthodox visitors to C.A.

So While you’re doing your homework, maybe you can see if you come accross the answer to this question,

When is the first time, in history, in writing, properly referenced, we see the name “Orthodox Church”

Okay, I will keep that in mind to look for. I want to read more resources to confirm, but recently encountered an article by David Bently Hart (The Myth of Schism - David Bentley Hart - Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice) that claimed that until very recently, the division between Catholics and Orthodox has been one primarily viewed as within the walls the Church, so the first usage of “Orthodox Church” referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church as we now know it may be rather late. Otherwise, I imagine it might pop up in writings regarding the universal Church, pre- East and West Schism.

and because there are certain Protestant objections to Catholicism that I am having a hard time getting past.

Like what?

Mainly the questions I posed earlier.
As a note: perhaps these questions seem relatively small, but I know that if I do decide to convert, I will receive a lot of backlash from my current church, will have a lot of questions asked of me, and cause quite a few people to be hurt, or at least very sad. I know the questions about holy days of obligation will come up after the faith and works conversation is had. It may seem small, but right now, it does still seem like legalism to me.
If I convert, it will be without reservations and with full submission to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I cannot, in good conscience, submit to those teachings while deeply feeling that some of them are legalistic or have little basis (as those referenced in other questions besides the ones about holy days of obligation).
Even more so, I cannot explain my conversion to others while not having an answer to these accusations of legalism/baseless doctrines without both myself and the questioning party knowing or feeling that I merely overlooked these issues because I wanted to convert.
I don’t need to understand everything about the Catholic Church to enter it (no one ever will, there is very deep mystery to it), but I do need to be able to answer questions that are deeply important to my current church and myself, and ultimately not just converting because it is my desire.

Here’s a highly condensed history of the first 4 centuries. I posted these 2 links as responses on the following thread. All the internal links are operational.

“Trail of Blood” Baptist link 1

“Trail of Blood” Baptist link 2

Thanks so much!

 

[steve-b]

As a note: perhaps these questions seem relatively small, but I know that if I do decide to convert, I will receive a lot of backlash from my current church, will have a lot of questions asked of me, and cause quite a few people to be hurt, or at least very sad. I know the questions about holy days of obligation will come up after the faith and works conversation is had. It may seem small, but right now, it does still seem like legalism to me.

Think of it as obedience of faith that Paul spoke of in Romans.

Paul opens up Romans, with
Obedience of faith Rom1:5 RSVCE - through whom we have received grace and - Bible Gateway

Paul closes Romans with
Obedience of faith Romans 16:26 RSVCE - but is now disclosed and through the - Bible Gateway

Obviously obedience of faith is high on Paul’s list. And Paul complements them for it and tells everyone about them as an example

BTW, Don’t hesitate to tell your friends that Romans is written to the Church of Rome, the same Church today, 2000 yrs later, with Pope Francis at the helm, 266th successor to St Peter

Chereek:

If I convert, it will be without reservations and with full submission to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I cannot, in good conscience, submit to those teachings while deeply feeling that some of them are legalistic or have little basis (as those referenced in other questions besides the ones about holy days of obligation).

In your journey,
don’t limit then, putting those same requirements to work, examining where you are now. Put them through the same examination.

Where does THEIR authority come from? Who started them and when did that happen?

Chereek:

Even more so, I cannot explain my conversion to others while not having an answer to these accusations of legalism/baseless doctrines without both myself and the questioning party knowing or feeling that I merely overlooked these issues because I wanted to convert. I don’t need to understand everything about the Catholic Church to enter it (no one ever will, there is very deep mystery to it), but I do need to be able to answer questions that are deeply important to my current church and myself, and ultimately not just converting because it is my desire.

All questions welcomed… Just ask away

 

[greenrangerx]

So I get that the “kingdom of priests” would be necessary as per Scripture and just plain logic, but I am not sure that I see the necessity of the ministerial priesthood.

The way that I understand this actually comes from Judaism. Peter is quoting Exodus when he calls Christians a kingdom of priests (see Exodus 19:6). The ancient Israelites were all priests, but they had a ministerial priesthood as well. Christianity follows suit.

 

[Entwhistler]

It wasn’t part of my teaching growing up, so what you might think of regarding mortal and venial sins in Scripture doesn’t occur to me, especially as it relates to official doctrines about the consequences and removal of each. Would you mind giving a few examples and explaining the reasoning that they

show a distinction between mortal and venial sins
prescribe particular consequences for each
have different ways to be remitted (like holy water or a bishop’s blessing remitting venial sin)?

I John 5:16-18 is a good example of the distinction between mortal and venial sins.

“If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly. We know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.”

Deadly is basically a mortal sin which separates one from God. One can be forgiven of a venial sin (or a non-deadly sin) by merely sincerely asking for forgiveness. However, deadly sins by their very nature kill and can only be forgiven by God directly through the ministry of the priest.

 

[pablope]

As far as my questions go, here are the few questions in the forefront of my mind, but if anyone is willing to have a longer discussion, there are others I might ask, but that are less vital, in my opinion:

1. This is kind of a few questions that all tie together: What is the nature and function of a priest? Are priests necessary for our relationship with God? If so, why is that? To me, if that is the case, it seems to be putting an unnecessary constraint/position on on the laity, especially when Christ has already established himself as Mediator. What would be the function and biblical justification for a necessary priesthood?

I hope this article will provide you some more insights as to the need for the priestly ministry:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

1. The Pope: specifically, why is he sometimes referred to as the “Head of the Church”? The Bible talks about Christ being the Head of the Church. Isn’t this blasphemy? Why/ How does the Catholic Church use this term?

https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
2. The Episcopate, In Divine Law, Established For Particular Churches

The Reason For This Need: The Church, Founded Round A Single Visible Head, Is To Retain This Essential Structure
The fundamental reason for having a single visible head is that the Church was from the first gathered together by the authority of a single visible Pastor, Christ. Thus she could retain her primitive structure after His bodily presence was withdrawn, only if He placed her under the authority of a single visible head, and gave him the assistance he would need to be the age-long foundation on which she would stand, the depositary of the jurisdictional power which would open her doors or close them, and the sovereign pastor who was to rule her. Here we penetrate to the roots of the whole Christian hierarchy. The law of the Incarnation is always valid; Christ continues to save us as He began, by bodily contact with His sanctity. But, after His ascension into heaven, where He lives under His own appearances, He couldmaintain a sensible corporeal contact with us only by means of appearances not His own. So, just as He continues to make contact with us by His substance, under the appearances of bread and wine, so He continues to make contact with us by His action, under the appearances of the hierarchy. To be more precise still, Hecontinues to make contact by exercising among us His external and sensible authority as Prince of Pastors; no longer directly in Himself as once He did, but through the ministry of a vicar, of a supreme visible pastor sufficiently assisted by Him to be, in all that concerns the jurisdictional order, the embodiment of Hisauthority and the continuation of His sensible and corporeal presence.[876]

 

[pablope]

Chereek:

Hi! So I’m Cheyenne and I am a Protestant.

In short, the reason I am still Protestant is because I am still researching between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and because there are certain Protestant objections to Catholicism that I am having a hard time getting past. To be honest, I want to be Catholic, but I want to research with fairness the different branches of Christianity and not just convert because it felt good in a given moment.

(Questions Below)

It’s too late, you know too much. I’t just a matter of time now.

Blessings on our journey and your search…anyway, I would like to share you this link…Four Witnesses Brought Me Home - Rod Bennet - YouTube

I think this towards the end of the he mentions (at about the 53th minute)…one of his reasons for choosing the CC…all major sees were affected by some of the early heresies…and only one stood to hold the truth…

 

[crenfro]

Hello.

You are very kind. Hope you get some rest from all your shifts.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

Chereek:

Hi! So I’m Cheyenne and I am a Protestant.

In short, the reason I am still Protestant is because I am still researching between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and because there are certain Protestant objections to Catholicism that I am having a hard time getting past. To be honest, I want to be Catholic, but I want to research with fairness the different branches of Christianity and not just convert because it felt good in a given moment.

(Questions Below)

It’s too late, you know too much. I’t just a matter of time now.

Blessings on our journey and your search…anyway, I would like to share you this link…Four Witnesses Brought Me Home - Rod Bennet - YouTube

I think this towards the end of the he mentions (at about the 53th minute)…one of his reasons for choosing the CC…all major sees were affected by some of the early heresies…and only one stood to hold the truth…

I think this was probably meant for Chereek

 

[Gorgias]

I am not sure that I see the necessity of the ministerial priesthood.

But, as we look at Acts and Paul’s epistles, we see that there is a particular role played by apostles, their successors, and their partners in ministry (priests and deacons). Whether or not we see the ‘necessity’, we see the presence of this ministerial priesthood in the early Church in the Scriptures! (And, when we expand our perspective to include the writings of the Early Church Fathers, we see that the ministerial priesthood was part of the Church since its inception!)

Now, at the time of the Reformation, there were two claims that were made: the sacraments aren’t what the Church always claimed they were, and there was no ministerial priesthood. (You have to admit – those were pretty radical claims! To contest the teaching and lived experience of the Church throughout its 1500-year history… that took a certain brand of chutzpah!)

So, the question you’ve asked is a pretty big question. You’re really asking for a discussion on the entirety of sacramental theology, as well as the ways that it grounds the discussion of the ministerial priesthood!

So… short of an essay on the whole of Catholic sacramental theology, is there a particular question (of somewhat lesser scope) that you’d like to ask?

I first heard it mentioned on a podcast, and when I looked it up, found some mentions. Below is an example:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

With all due respect, that article begins, “The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.” So, I think it’s fair to claim that “head of the Church” be understood in the context “the Vicar of Christ upon earth.”

Is this a matter of Christ leaving Peter the keys to Heaven and being Christ’s representative, gaining this title as being representative of the true Head of the Church, or would it be more than that?

I think the implication isn’t “representative”, per se, so much as vicar – and, by Mt 16:19, also having been given proxy by Christ to lead His Church on earth!

Chereek:

The division between Mortal and Venial sins

There’s Scripture to back that up, no?

Yes. See 1 John 5:16-17.

However, I would recommend that you read the Catechism. In particular, the “United States Catholic Catechism for Adults” is an approachable read. (It’s available for free access as a flipbook on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org).) Looking at the index, I see that the topic is discussed on p. 237 and p. 313.

Would you mind giving a few examples and explaining the reasoning…

Would you mind if I ask that you read the Catechism references I’ve provided, and then come back with any questions you have? (If you have the same questions, I’ll answer them then!)

 

[Gorgias]

By the way, @Chereek, here’s the link for the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults!

Gorgias:

days of obligation

“Keep holy the Sabbath”, no?
…
Check out what the Mosaic covenant says about Jews who don’t observe the Passover.

I see how the reasons would flow from Mosaic Covenant, but Romans 14:5-9 seems to indicate a difference from that Covenant.

In that passage, Paul is talking about observations of abstinence, not precepts of Christian worship.

 

[dochawk]

I don’t need to understand everything about the Catholic Church to enter it (no one ever will, there is very deep mystery to it),

Oooh, you’re already leaning East!



more seriously, you will find the same Theology and Liturgy of the Orthodox, but in communion with Rome, in the Eastern Catholic churches.

And as for when the exact point of consecration is according to Eastern theology? The answer is “yes.”



I also note that you seem to have reached many of the more serious failings of Protestant theology on your own, so some kind of congratulations are in order.

hawk

 

[Chereek]

I haven’t yet, though given his journey, I think it would help.

Thanks!

I actually have a Catechism, I’m just not super far in it yet. Thank you for the other recommendations! I will look in to them

 

[Chereek]

John 20:23. Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive/retain sins. This is pretty important. Although we can have a relationship with God without having a priest in ways such as praying, God made it so that a priest is ordinarily required for salvation because that is ordinarily how we receive salvific graces through the sacraments. Now, that’s only ordinarily. In cases where one cannot get to confession, for example, it will suffice to make a perfect act of contrition and our sins will be forgiven if we resolve to go to confession as soon as possible. God does not expect us to do the impossoble, so there are no unreasonable expectations in making priests required.

Okay, that makes more sense. Would it be fair to say that the sacraments are a (if not the) chief reason for the ordinary necessity of the priest?

Also, hypothetical question but one that I do not think is unrealistic: if a person is in the midst of sin that requires confession and would normally repent after it, but dies before they do, is it possible for God to have mercy on them, according to Catholic theology?
For instance, a person has premarital sex. They are a generally devout Catholic with a true love for God, but in a moment with their significant other, give into temptation and have sex, knowing it is against Church teaching and with full consent. Leaving, the seriousness hasn’t quite hit them, but based on their personality and devotion, it will soon enough. However, they get into a car accident and die prior to that.
Maybe it seems out of left field, but with a few posts regarding Confession, it’s something that has made me curious. However, if you’d rather not answer hypotheticals, I understand that too.

The Pope is called the “head of the Church” because he is the Vicar of Christ. Christ is ultimately the head of the Church, but since Christ is away right now, he left a second-in-command: Peter (the Pope). Sort of like how in the Old Testament, whenever the king left the country, he left his second-in-command in charge. His second-in-command has full control while the king was out. Likewise, the Pope is in control of the Church while (only while) Christ the King is away.

The Bible does say that Jesus gave the Apostles (and therefore their successors) the ability to bind and loose. For this reason, it is biblical for the Church to decide on Holy Days of Obligation. Also, the Church dogmatically defines dogmas that have been revealed. We’re not necessarily claiming that we figured out what the mysteries mean, but that they were revealed to us.

It’s not superstition because we don’t believe the objects themselves give us grace. The prayers and devotions, if done sincerely, give us the graces. We don’t need the physical objects. We can still pray the rosary without actual rosary beads, for example. God gave us ten fingers for a reason.

These make sense to me. Thank you

 

[Chereek]

Fantastic, thank you!

 

[Chereek]

Thanks! I’ve been hearing a lot of recommendations for Trent Horn.

 

[Chereek]

Absolutely! Christ, being the Eternal High Priest, ascended into Heaven and is no longer on Earth in the capacity that he was during His Earthly life. Therefore, He ‘Ordered’ chosen men to act in His Person to make present His paschal mystery until He comes again, through the Holy Spirit. Also, Christ the Head bestows His Mystical Body, i.e. the Church, to share and participate in His mediation, especially by choosing men to share and participate in His priesthood!

Thanks! I think one of the things I keep forgetting in the Catholic Church is the emphasis on sharing and participation, rather than substitution and then participation in a personal, bit more individualistic way. Doctrines make more sense in light of that.

There is nothing inherently wrong with married priests/bishops, as it is not doctrine but only practice for a non-celibate/celibate priesthood. However, Our Blessed Lord, as Eternal High Priest, chose to remain celibate and it is more fitting for those who share in His priesthood to do likewise at the request of the Church, as it is in the Latin Rite.

Sorry for the confusion! The “that” I was referring to was the necessity of the the priesthood. I find the practice of a celibate priesthood refreshing in a lot of ways.

Where have you heard this term?

I was first introduced to it in a podcast and when I looked it up, found some Catholics using it as well.
Ex: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

[Chereek]

That’s a good point.

 

[Chereek]

I always saw them as something I would take if I decided to convert, but it probably would be a good idea to join. If I was able to go in the immediate future, would it be better to go at the parish closest to me, or a parish where I go to Bible study and have more relationships?

 

[Chereek]

Haha, you might be right. xD

 

[Pup7]

I know you didn’t ask me, but I would recommend going to an RCIA where you already have a relationship with the people if you can. I’m just finishing up my own RCIA classes and will be joining the church this Easter. You might find you have a lot of questions as the course progresses and it might be easier asking people who are already familiar to you (and you to them as well).