To Protestants: Why aren't you Catholic?

[Eden]

Doreen:

What I am showing by the definition of “tradition” is that there is clearly a difference of opinion about which “tradition” was to be continued…passed down…

The “deposit of faith”, Tradition and Scripture are from God. There is no room for opinion. That is why Martin Luther’s opinion that we were to know God’s Word only through the Bible was heresy. If you research it, you will see that he specifically states he was not led by the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles were never taught such a thing by Jesus or the Holy Spirit about “Sola Scriptura”. The “deposit of faith” can never be changed because it is not ours to change. For instance, every Christian church taught against contraception just as was taught in the early Church (when pagans practiced contraception, abortion and infanticide). At the beginning of the 20th century, the other Christian churches fell like cards on this issue. But the Church does not change to accommodate opinion. The church does not follow opinion polls. We see what happens when cultural mores change and Protestant churches change with them.

**

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than Christ.”

**

Again, Tradition in the Church is from God. The teachings of Protestant faiths that contradict what the Church teaches are hollow and deceptive philosophies, human tradition which depend on the basic principles of this world. The do-it-yourself, find the religion that suits me, it caves to popular opinion church; that is what this would be describing.

Edited to add these passages on Sacred Tradition:

1 Corinthians 11:2 says I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thess 2:15 says Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Further on 3:6 saysWe instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

 

[Steadfast]

Alright then, one reason this Protestant isn’t Catholic is because the RCC insists on binding consciences to matters in which believers ought to have liberty to believe or not believe…adiaphora.

 

[Makaveli]

Who would want to be protestant anyway? Yes they are denominations, but I think they are also abominations as well.

 

[kujo313]

Makaveli:

Who would want to be protestant anyway? Yes they are denominations, but I think they are also abominations as well.

Some are, some aren’t.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

Some are, some aren’t.

Which Protestant denominations are abominations and which ones aren’t?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Doreen:

Were you there? Do you know that there was no outrage? See?]

No, none of us were there, but we do have historical records from the very beginning of the chruch documenting what the church leaders were thinking, and their response to heresy. For example, we have Irenaeus’ response to Gnosticism. Doreen’s point is, if a Cathoic doctrine, such as the Real Presence, was truely a novelty in Christianity and appeared suddenly in the year 325, why are there no documents by any of the Church leaders condemning this new teaching? Why were church leaders, who were so concerned with destroying heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism, so passive about this heresy?

I have asked the Lord to show me what is His greater truth on all these questions (especially regarding the many sacraments the Catholics do as acts of penance, etc…)

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding about the concept of the sacraments. Catholics believe that the sacraments are a physical channel of God’s grace to our lives. They are NOT an act of penance, a temporal punishment (punishment we endure in this world) for our sins. Catholics have never taught that the Sacraments are a punishment from God. Far from it! The Sacraments contain the gifts of his grace, the fruits of the Passion, Death, and Ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ! They are a sign of God’s mercy and love for His beloved children. Hardly a punishment!

It’s not as if the protestant thinks they can do as they please…perhaps SOME do so…just as SOME Catholics have little visible fruit of “circumcision”…

No argument here.

]See, for me all the sacraments were specific hoops I had to jump through and once I did those things, I was okay with God. I know that is not what is taught…and I know that was not the intention when these things became a part of the doctrine…the point is, though that they became a stumbling block for me, because I just understood if I did a, b, and c…then I am going to be accepted by God.

If you know that this is not what is taught, why does the idea of Sacraments disturb you? I could certainly understand why you would be upset if your understanding of it was true, but even you admit that this is not the church’s teaching. I don’t see how you can criticize the Church for teaching something that you admit that she does not teach.

In the Catholic church, I thought it was just expected that I would continue to sin and while I know that isn’t the intent of the teachings…that’s what I understood…because I was never told the Holy Spirit was God’s gift to me once I turned my life over.

As you admit, the fault was not in Catholic teaching, but in your own understanding of it.

Sorry about the weird way of designating quotes. I’m new to the forum and I haven’t yet figured out how to reply to a specific post, so I can’t find the post that I’m referring to just now. I will try to find it and correct the post once I do.

 

[Brian_C]

Yeouch! Conversion is not an everyday process. Let’s remember, most protestants are that way b/c their families have been for many, many, many generations. How many of us are given the opportunity to pick at an early age what denomination we want to be raised in? I know you’re just stating how you feel, but remember the whole “catching flies w/ honey” analogy.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Anyway, I figured I’d respond to this post, since I am in the RCIA process, converting from Protestantism. When I first began to read Catholic teaching, and to consider whether or not it might be true, I was terrified. I couldn’t believe that so much of what I believed might actually be wrong. It’s a very hard pill to swallow. To some extent, when I did begin to accept Catholic teaching, I felt like joining the Catholic Church would be a major blow to my pride. I was raised in a Protestant family, and I had always felt that we were right, and they were wrong. All of a sudden I started thinking, “Maybe we were wrong, and they were right.” At that time, I felt that joining the Catholic Church was basically an admission of defeat, saying, “Ok. I was wrong, and you guys were right all along. You happy?”
Also, I was afraid because I knew that no one I knew would support this decision. All of my mom’s family is Protestant, and my dad’s family have don’t practice any religion. Some of my friends are not religous at all or practice Protestantism or non-Christian religions, and a few of them are non-practicing Catholics, or former Catholics. I knew that none of my family or friends would understand why I would do such a thing. I don’t blame them. Five years ago, if you told me I would be converting to the Catholic Church, I’d laugh and say, “Sure. I’ll be getting a sex change operation too.” As silly as this sound, it is a big decision to leave your comfort zone behind, and go where you never expected to go. I had friends in the Protestant traditions; I had been involved in Protestant religous activities in school. It was this faith that helped to sustain me through my parents’ divorce. My mom, a devoted Protestant, and others like her first taught me about God, and they taught me to love Him, worship Him, and obey Him. I felt like they would see this as a betrayal, as a failure on their part. I also worried how my mom would tell some of her friends about this, since she is involved in a non-denominational church with a pastor with an Anti-Catholic outlook. When I realized that I was becoming increasingly Catholic in my beliefs, I found myself mourning for the things that I would have to give up. Basically, it meant leaving an entire subculture behind.
To be perfectly honest, I think many of the Catholics I met dissuaded me from joining the Church. When I started reading about Catholic teaching, I was stunned that there were people out there who knew what the Catholic Church taught, believed what she taught, and could explain why they believed it. It never occurred to me that there could possibly be any Catholics like that in the entire world, which shows you the kind of Catholics I’ve met in my life. At that time, the Catholic Church seemed dead, a church where people didn’t really care about their faith or make any attempt to learn about it or really follow it. I was terrified that I could never find a Catholic husband who would share my beliefs, and I dreaded trying to raise my children in a community without good Christian examples. The Church did not seem like a very good place to raise my children, if I wanted them to stay Catholic.
Now, obviously, since I am joining the Catholic Church this Easter (praise be to the Holy Trinity!), none of these issues are preventing me from joining the church. But they did make it a very difficult decision. I’m not going to say how I overcame these obstacles, since that would take too much space. But I can try to answer that question if people are curious.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

I knew the next one was for me! How’d I know that?

Maybe we’re on the same wavelength - I hope so ​

Tradition comes to us through Christ and the Apostles. The Apostles taught the Word of God and it comes down to us through the “deposit of faith” (which includes both Tradition and Scripture). Did you think Church Tradition was of man?

From CA: **Furthermore, Catholics distinguish capital “T” Tradition, which comes from God, either through Christ or the apostles (Luke 10:16), from lower-case “t” human traditions or customs. While the latter may (although need not) contradict the Word of God, the former cannot, and it is capital “T” Tradition about which Catholicism is principally concerned. **

**Not only is there a difference between Tradition originating with God and traditions understood as human customs, there’s also a distinction between Tradition as divinely revealed truth not explicitly found in Scripture and, more broadly, Tradition as the whole apostolic faith as passed down from the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15). **

[catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp)

I know all that stuff - I’m Catholic, just like you ​

Unfortunately, none of it answers my questions. But thanks anyway

Just eights posts more, and this thread reaches THAT number ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the Traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show:

Pope Clement I

Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults. (*Letter to the Corinthians *11 [A.D. 80])

Papias

Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their Traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from Tradition. (Fragment in Eusebius, *Church History *3:39 [A.D. 312])

Eusebius of Caesarea

At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from Tradition. (Church History 4:21)

Irenaeus

As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless,** the authority of the Tradition is one and the same** (*Against Heresies *1:10:2 [A.D. 189])

Irenaeus

That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the Tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? (ibid., 3:4:1)

Irenaeus

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times-men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who . . . assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree-that is, all the faithful in the whole world-and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition. (ibid., 3:3:1-2)

More here: [catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104frs.asp](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104frs.asp)

But - none of the post addresses my question: which is about the rightness (or, as I firmly believe, the wrongness) of calling Tradition “the Word of God”.​

Thinking of the Bible as a form of Tradition, is not a problem.

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

To refer to Tradition in total, rather than to the Bible alone, as “the Word of God”, is a big problem.

It goes without saying that Jesus Christ is the Word of God:specifically, the Word of God “made flesh”.

Both the Bible, and The Word Who is the Great Subject of the Bible, are called the Word of God; this is common to Catholic and to Protestant theology. Protestants often refer to Him as “The Word Incarnate”, and to the written Word, as “The Word Inscripturate”. Which is a very nice way of bringing out the close connection between the two.

The Word Incarnate confirms the Word Inscripturate, and the Word Inscripturate is fulfilled in the Word Incarnate. So there is an intimate “communion” between the two. Each is made present in the other, each is made manifest by the other. They go together wonderfully well.

It is probably not a mistake to speak of a “mysticism of Scripture” in Protestantism - something which we have all but lost: to the great weakening of our ability to bear witness efficaciously to Christ, IMHO.

In any case, what is nowhere clear from those quotations, is that it is in accord with the Catholic Christian tradition to refer to Tradition (as distinct from Scripture), however sacred or theologically valuable, as “The Word of God”.

Jesus Himself - whose own practice is surely not unimportant for the practice of his disciples - used the term only for the Scriptures: His attitude to the “traditions of the elders” was not as respectful as it was to the Scriptures; He rejected the one, but affirmed the other, in the way characteristic of Him: He nowhere speaks disrespectfully of Scripture, but holds Himself free to interpret them of Himself, and to reject interpretations of them which weaken their force. He is far more wholesale in rejecting “traditions of men” than His contemporaries. He is therefore revolutionary in some respects, conservative in others, and always creative.

Even if none of the words ascribed to Him are His own, they certainly express the way in which He was understood by the evangelists. They therefore have preserved His own voice, even if not His own words.

The only way to justify this novelty - for novelty it seems to be - that I can think of, is this: that the deposit of faith as a whole is being given a (not altogether well-chosen) name, which properly applies only to a part of it - as though one were to speak of “a fleet of a hundred sail” instead of “a fleet of a hundred ships”. IOW, to call Tradition “The Word of God” appears to be justifiable as a sort of metonymy; but not otherwise. Whether figures of speech - of which metonymy is one - are desirable or advisable in theological texts (such as the documents of councils are) is another question. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

As Catholics we distinguish between saints on earth and the saints in heaven. We are saints in the making on earth, while those in heaven are saints who have been perfected in faith, hope, and love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:13).

It seems we are on the same wave-length - for that is what part of I said. That is why it is so unrealistic to distinguish too sharply between perfected saints, and saints in the making. And why the experience of saints of either kind, not only of those who are perfected, is worth taking note of: for all this is the work of the one Christ and the one Spirit. None of us could be anything without the grace of this one God; and this applies especially to those who are most Christ-like (unless one is to think they coould sanctify themselves, as though grace could replace the need for yet more grace, and more continually thereafter).​

 

[Eden]

## I know all that stuff - I’m Catholic, just like you

Unfortunately, none of it answers my questions. But thanks anyway

Just eights posts more, and this thread reaches THAT number ##

Good to know you know all this stuff. I wasn’t sure.

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

But - none of the post addresses my question: which is about the rightness (or, as I firmly believe, the wrongness) of calling Tradition “the Word of God”.

Thinking of the Bible as a form of Tradition, is not a problem.

Tradition comes from God either through Christ or the apostles.
Scriptures came from God through the authors.

As Tradition is from God, what do you wish to call it, if not the “Word of God”? The “Thought of God”, “The Idea of God”, “The Plan of God”, “The Framework of God”?

 

[Eden]

Gottle of Geer:

It seems we are on the same wave-length - for that is what part of I said. That is why it is so unrealistic to distinguish too sharply between perfected saints, and saints in the making. And why the experience of saints of either kind, not only of those who are perfected, is worth taking note of: for all this is the work of the one Christ and the one Spirit. None of us could be anything without the grace of this one God; and this applies especially to those who are most Christ-like (unless one is to think they coould sanctify themselves, as though grace could replace the need for yet more grace, and more continually thereafter).

Actually, we are not seeing this in the same way. You are not making the distinction between the person who is a sinner on their spiritual journey in this life (becoming a saint) and the perfected saint living in the Beatific Vision.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

kujo313:

You want to know what draws ME closer to Christ?

The trees: they reach upwards towards Heaven.
The sun: it’s a miracle it don’t burn us up.
The stars: He calls them by name.
The Earth: perfect for life. Only God can make it, not a big bang.
It tilts back and forth to give each hemisphere summer and winter.
It recycles water through vapor, clouds and rain.
It’s at the right distance from the sun.
It had just the right amount of oxygen and stuff to keep life.
It has trees that produce oxygen, for us to breathe.

Our bodies:
All the organs in us cannot come from by accident or by chance.

The horn symbol on my steering wheel: Maybe TODAY we will hear the trumpets sound and see Jesus returning!
Cemeteries: imagining graves opening and bodies rising.
Tithing: God’s math: 90% > 100%

Shall I continue?

That’s a rather “Catholic” approach to God’s creation ; because what comes across in your post is that those things put you in mind of God: in other words, they are, in their different ways, signs of God’s creative activity; and act therefore in something of the way that sacraments do; sacraments being effectual signs of God’s saving action which are signs of the grace which they convey.​

The saints - basically, any Christian in the friensdship of Christ - are also signs of God’s creativity and saving power, who take their entire meaning and purpose from Christ, the King of Saints, into Whose Likeness those with Him in Heaven have been entirely transformed; unlike those on earth, who are not yet “just men made perfect”, as they are. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

Tradition comes from God either through Christ or the apostles.
Scriptures came from God through the authors.

As Tradition is from God, what do you wish to call it, if not the “Word of God”? The “Thought of God”, “The Idea of God”, “The Plan of God”, “The Framework of God”?

How about…oh, I don’t know - Tradition, perhaps ? ​

That would help avoid a lot of confusion and muddled thinking - theology is never well served by muddled thinking, and neither is the interior life. If we are not certain of what we mean by the concepts we use, we are not helping ourselves - or our neighbours. Or the Church at large. Words are quite confusing enough without adding to the confusion without need. (It may not always be easy to remember that “creationism” (say) has two meanings at least, but at least we need not add to the number of them.)

One of the problems with Tradition is that the meaning of the word has varied more than some people may realise - sufficiently so, for the usual CAF distinction between the T-type and t-type of it to be rather harder to apply than may at first appear.

Anyway, this new-fangled tendency to refer to it as the Word of God, and without further explanation at that, as though doing so were a well-established & familiar or even traditional usage, strikes me as being at least (as the censors used to say) “ill-sounding”.

The Bible is securely identified as the Word of God - this novel use of that term is too liable to give the impression that Tradition, by being called what the Bible is already called, has the same qualities as the Bible: such as inspiration. Have you come across any Father, Council, magisterial text, or theologian who has called Tradition “inspired” ? I haven’t.

One of the ill results of making Tradition into a sort of “parallel Bible” in that way, would be that the past decisions of the magisterium on the nature of the inspiration of the Bible would be in danger of being obscured.

For instance: the condemnation (at Vatican I, I think) of the long-lived theory that inspiration covered only ideas, but not words, would cease to make the sense it does at present, if such a theory had to be adopted in order to explain how Tradition could be called inspired. And it might have to be, were Tradition said to be inspired; for Tradition is not a body of texts, as Scripture is, but something much more mixed and nebulous. So one could not speak of it in exactly the same terms as one can of the Bible - terms applicable to the Bible, would apply only poorly to Tradition.

One has to try to think ahead a bit, in order to avoid such consequences; rather than blunder, quite needlessly, into all manner of confusion and bother by using inappropriate and confusing terminology. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden:

Actually, we are not seeing this in the same way. You are not making the distinction between the person who is a sinner on their spiritual journey in this life (becoming a saint) and the perfected saint living in the Beatific Vision.

But I have ​

 

[St.Eric]

Can we not just say that Sacred Tradition is a commandment of the bible? Paul tells us to “hold fast…” to it. Therefore we can say it is biblical or scriptural. Not the word of God perhaps but the word of Paul. Maybe this would hold more water with our seperated brethren since often times they put more emphasis on Paul’s books than on the Gospels where Jesus actually speaks.

 

[St.Eric]

Hey Gottle of Geer! Can you elaborate on this please? What does it mean?

Religion:
Christo-panentheistic Acosmist Barthian Catholic Christian