What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

[House_Harkonnen]

So this person said that her declaration of nullity proclaimed that her marriage “may or may not have existed”.

Yes? Or no?

This is a rather simple question, so I hope you can answer it simply.

Yes. After forking over a pretty penny for such a declaration.

 

[bigalvin]

Here are the classic reasons why people leave Catholicism:

1. They disagreed with a moral teaching of the Church (ie, contraception, divorce).
2. They were emotionally or physically hurt by someone in authority in the Catholic Church (a priest or a nun).
3. They were casual Catholics with no real understanding of the Church’s doctrine, and they left when someone who was Protestant gave them what *appeared *to be a better explanation of the gospel.
4. They married a non-Catholic Christian.

I believe it is EXTREMELY rare for a Catholic who knows the faith well to leave the Church unless points 1 or 2 are involved.

Conversely, I believe that Protestants frequently convert to Catholicism for some of the same princilples but also because as they study theology and history more deeply,

they begin to realize that Catholicism offers a truer and more complete explanation of theology and history.

All good “points” BUT – some people actually get a leading-- and direction from God the Holy Spirit-- to attend another church assembly-- that involves – the Holy Spirit

Uploaded on Jun 22, 2009

Duplantis, once a pop star, now a renowned man of God. God touched his life and changed him and thru him brought salvation to others

saved at 24 years old

youtu.be/QbkOlZJyU-M

BUT also – i have found people like yourself-- that were at non- catholic churches-- that have the opposite leading–

and then they are “recovering non- catholics” like a former alcoholic-- they preach against the non catholic assembly’s churches

Good teaching and bad homily’s are one of the reasons also

BUT when you are Born again-- and functionin the power and presence of the HOly Spirit-- that is whatmakes the difference— every thing else is just – “some body"s opinion”

 

[JonNC]

I am not understanding your position here, Jon.

Are you saying that since the Augsburg Confession uses the term “We”, this necessarily means, “not I”?

That is, as it applies to my question: “We as a church follow sola scriptura but I as an individual cannot”?

The very application of sola scriptura is a practice of Church leaders, not individuals. If I wish to be and remain Lutheran,I have no more the power to redefine or reinterpret the Lutheran belief regarding the real presence than you do the Catholic understanding of said.
Sola scriptura is not individual interpretation. We are bound to the teachings of the Church.

Jon

 

[SoMissCatholic]

The very application of sola scriptura is a practice of Church leaders, not individuals. If I wish to be and remain Lutheran,I have no more the power to redefine or reinterpret the Lutheran belief regarding the real presence than you do the Catholic understanding of said.
Sola scriptura is not individual interpretation. We are bound to the teachings of the Church.

Jon

The natural follow up question to this, at least to me, is if you, individually, have no power to redefine or reinterpret Lutheran belief, what gave Martin Luther power to redefine or reinterpret Catholic belief? Was he not just as bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church as you are by the Lutheran Church?

 

[JonNC]

The natural follow up question to this, at least to me, is if you, individually, have no power to redefine or reinterpret Lutheran belief, what gave Martin Luther power to redefine or reinterpret Catholic belief? Was he not just as bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church as you are by the Lutheran Church?

The evangelical Catholics of the time, including Luther, would probably say that he did no such thing, but instead recalled the teachings of the early Church Catholic. One can dispute whether or not they did, but that is what I suspect they would say. In fact, they did, at the end of the Augsburg Confession:
**Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. **

Further, some might argue that Lutheran “innovations” are nothing more than a continuation of the western practice of innovations, outside of truly ecumenical councils.
And some may refute that argument.

Jon

 

[pablope]

The evangelical Catholics of the time, including Luther, would probably say that he did no such thing, but instead recalled the teachings of the early Church Catholic. One can dispute whether or not they did, but that is what I suspect they would say. In fact, they did, at the end of the Augsburg Confession:
**Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. **For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches. Further, some might argue that Lutheran “innovations” are nothing more than a continuation of the western practice of innovations, outside of truly ecumenical councils.
And some may refute that argument.

Jon

So Jon…where does disregarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders by Lutherans fall in what category?

And where does redefinging the sacraments from 7 by both East and West, into 3 by Lutherans fall in what category?

 

[pablope]

The very application of sola scriptura is a practice of Church leaders, not individuals. If I wish to be and remain Lutheran,I have no more the power to redefine or reinterpret the Lutheran belief regarding the real presence than you do the Catholic understanding of said.
Sola scriptura is not individual interpretation. We are bound to the teachings of the Church.

Jon

Have you found the actual definition from Luther of what or how he described SS to be?

 

[JonNC]

So Jon…where does disregarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders by Lutherans fall in what category?

And where does redefinging the sacraments from 7 by both East and West, into 3 by Lutherans fall in what category?

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

Approved by the Confutators.

To Article XIV.

When, in the fourteenth article, they confess that no one ought to administer in the Church the Word of God and the sacraments unless he be rightly called, it ought to be understood that he is rightly called who is called in accordance with the form of law and the ecclesiastical ordinances and decrees hitherto observed everywhere in the Christian world, and not according to a Jeroboitic (cf. 1 Kings 12:20) call, or a tumult or any other irregular intrusion of the people. Aaron was not thus called. Therefore in this sense the Confession is received; nevertheless, they should be admonished to persevere therein, and to admit in their realms no one either as pastor or as preacher unless he be rightly called.

So, why were things done differently?

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

I have said often that I don’t believe that the numbering of sacraments would be a Church - dividing issue. That said, the Apology speaks to the issue here:

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

Jon

 

[Sy_Noe]

I have never met an ex-Catholic, IRL or here on the CAFs (and believe me, I’ve been in dialogue with a whole lot o’ them), who can articulate Catholic teaching and offer any kind of apologia for even fundamental beliefs such as the Mass.

I suspect you are an ex-Catholic, and I challenge you!

Have you ever met anyone here on CAF who knows Catholic teaching and history but are lets say Lutheran or Anglican, or anything else for that matter, and who haven’t joined your church?

In your posts you do appear to suspect or presume things but since you mentioned it, what’s an ex-Catholic in your mind?

A) A baptized/confirmed Catholic who does not or no longer practices?

B) A baptized/confirmed Catholic who dissents but practices some, perhaps by attending Mass?

C) B. But not weekly although more than Christmas and Easter.

D) B. But only on those 2 holidays.

E) A baptized/confirmed Catholic who attends another church but has not offically become a member of that church?

F) E. And has officially become a member of another church.

 

[PRmerger]

Have you ever met anyone here on CAF who knows Catholic teaching and history but are lets say Lutheran or Anglican, or anything else for that matter, and who haven’t joined your church?

Yes, I have met folks here who meet that criteria.

In your posts you do appear to suspect or presume things but since you mentioned it, what’s an ex-Catholic in your mind?

Anyone who claims to be one.

 

[PRmerger]

My source is the person.

The amount they paid is private but it was nice chunk of money.

It’s still private, HH, even if you tell us how much she paid for her annulment.

Anonymity in this situation is guaranteed.

There is no reason to withhold the amount for purposes of being “private”.

I assure you, no one will be able to place the amount that was paid with any individual.

And I trust in your integrity when you offer the amount that was paid.

What was it?

Just for a Catholic approved divorce and remarriage.

This is clearly another example of your impoverished understanding of the Catholic faith.

An annulment is not at all a “Catholic approved divorce”.

To make such statements limns, sadly, the dreadful catechesis you had.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t think its interesting that church that claims to no believe in divorce, demand that some people get divorced?

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

Another example of your poor, abysmal, dreadful catechesis, HH.

The CC does not believe that one cannot divorce.

The CC, like Christ, says that one cannot divorce and re-marry.

Because that is adultery.

[SIGN1]Not our words.
But Christ’s.[/SIGN1]

Would that you had known the faith that you left. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

LOL, I used that same line too when I debated folks who left. I understand its a common Catholic canard.

Except that you just demonstrated an appalling ignorance regarding the Church’s very basic teaching on divorce.

Again: the Catholic Church is against divorce and re-marriage. Not divorce*.

Did you know that divorced folks may receive communion in the Catholic Church, as long as they are, like everyone else, in a state of grace?

I bet you didn’t.

But I will certainly happily retract this assumption if you tell me, in your integrity, that you really did know this.

*NB: in the context of this discussion we understand that the Catholic Church, like all Protestant churches, does not see divorce as a good thing. However, where we depart from our Protestant brethren is where we uphold what Christ said in Matthew 19:9 and declare that divorce and re-marriage is ADULTERY.

Not our words. But Christ’s.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. I might go to a remarriage if the divorce was because of physical or sexual or emotional abuse.

That’s exactly right. I knew you would.

And that is creating your own rules, to conform to how you wish it should be.

Except when you do this, you ignore the very clear Scriptural declaration that this second marriage is adultery.

Not my words. But Christ’s.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

It’s still private, HH, even if you tell us how much she paid for her annulment.

Anonymity in this situation is guaranteed.

There is no reason to withhold the amount for purposes of being “private”.

I assure you, no one will be able to place the amount that was paid with any individual.

And I trust in your integrity when you offer the amount that was paid.

What was it?

This is clearly another example of your impoverished understanding of the Catholic faith.

An annulment is not at all a “Catholic approved divorce”.

To make such statements limns, sadly, the dreadful catechesis you had.

It’s still private, HH, even if you tell us how much she paid for her annulment.

Anonymity in this situation is guaranteed.

There is no reason to withhold the amount for purposes of being “private”.

I assure you, no one will be able to place the amount that was paid with any individual.

And I trust in your integrity when you offer the amount that was paid.

What was it?

1500 dollars.

This is clearly another example of your impoverished understanding of the Catholic faith.

An annulment is not at all a “Catholic approved divorce”.

Sure it is. That’s why I know Catholics married 2 or 3 times, with the blessing of their denomination.

 

[PRmerger]

Where I have I declared any sort of animus?

How about right here?

Working with my pastor I have let go of my anger towards my former church.

Clearly, there was animus when you left.

Just sayin’.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

PRmerger;:

Another example of your poor, abysmal, dreadful catechesis, HH.

The CC does not believe that one cannot divorce.

The CC, like Christ, says that one cannot divorce and re-marry.

Because that is adultery.

[SIGN1]Not our words.
But Christ’s.[/SIGN1]

Would that you had known the faith that you left. :sad_yes:

LOL. They ask you to get legally divorced, then fork over enough cash for the pat on the back, then they can remarry.

 

[PRmerger]

I used that canard too as a Catholic apologist

I hope when you were a Catholic apologist you never led anyone astray with your mistaken allegation that the Church does not believe in divorce.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL. They ask you to get legally divorced, then fork over enough cash for the pat on the back, then they can remarry.

See?

Animus.

And ignorance of what an annulment is.

Catechesis before you leave, HH. That’s vital.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Except that you just demonstrated an appalling ignorance regarding the Church’s very basic teaching on divorce.

Again: the Catholic Church is against divorce and re-marriage. Not divorce*.

Did you know that divorced folks may receive communion in the Catholic Church, as long as they are, like everyone else, in a state of grace?

I bet you didn’t.

But I will certainly happily retract this assumption if you tell me, in your integrity, that you really did know this.

*NB: in the context of this discussion we understand that the Catholic Church, like all Protestant churches, does not see divorce as a good thing. However, where we depart from our Protestant brethren is where we uphold what Christ said in Matthew 19:9 and declare that divorce and re-marriage is ADULTERY.

Not our words. But Christ’s.

Christ never said anything about forking over some cash to the apostles for them to declare your marriage “May or may not have existed”.

Even so, pornea according to all reputable Greek dictionaries means “sexual immorality”. Can you produce one reputable Greek language source that declares otherwise? Else it’s just your denominations theological opinion.