What is it with Protestants?

[conniejean]

I think it’s mainly from fear of the truth.

My best girl friend is Protestant. She recently invited my family and I to her church to hear her sing in the choir. I said I would be happy to attend her church but that we would have to find a catholic church in her area to attend either before or after her service. She was angry with me, because I came across as, her church not being “good enough”. I calmly explained to her, that her church does not celebrate the Mass. She didn’t understand what that really meant. So, instead of trying to explain it to her, I gave her the booklet “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.” A wonderful book to give to our Protestant friends! I’m not sure if she read it. I’m waiting for her to mention it to me, or ask me a question. I’ve been praying for her conversion. She would be a dynamite catholic!

I also have catholic friends who won’t listen to me when I talk to them about our faith. Strangely, they’re the ones that ask me the questions, and when I give them the truth, they get mad at me, or they don’t want to talk about it anymore. Then I get accused of talking about religion all the time! I didn’t even bring it up!!! Awwwwww!
Does anyone else run into this problem with our so called “non-practicing” catholics, or protestant friends?

Sorry for being so long winded. It’s a sensitive subject for me.

P.S. My husband recently got a reversal vasectomy. Boy, you should’ve seen the eyes roll on that one! It was quite humerous!

 

[Annunciata]

conniejean:

I also have catholic friends who won’t listen to me when I talk to them about our faith. Strangely, they’re the ones that ask me the questions, and when I give them the truth, they get mad at me, or they don’t want to talk about it anymore. Then I get accused of talking about religion all the time! I didn’t even bring it up!!! Awwwwww!
Does anyone else run into this problem with our so called “non-practicing” catholics, or protestant friends?

Hi Conniejean,
I have found that the Catholics who have left the Church are the most dissenting of all. They don’t want to know the truth…if they did, they wouldn’t have left. BTW, you can still give them the Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth booklet…it can’t hurt… (you can always say, “that is,if you’re not afraid to read it”)
What a great thing to be accused of… talking about the Faith!:clapping:
In Christ, Annuciata

 

[Lance]

As a convert, I don’t know that Protestants reject so much as disagree with the church. The sins of our Priests and Bishops certainly have not helped. We really must look at ourselves and say that if so many were willing to accept Luther at that time, we surely had problems that the Bishops were not addressing. Otherwise no one would have followed him. Protestants make it easy to join, we make it somewhat difficult. I am not saying this is wrong but that is why so many choose to be Protestant, IMO. In my experience most Protestants are not anti-Catholic just as most Catholics are not anti-Protestant. Personally, I think the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established and wish that all would come home but that does not make them bad people if they don’t.

 

[Becky]

because I simply cannot profess the following in good faith: I believe and profess all that the holy (Roman)* Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.*

And yes, I do know and understand what the RCC teaches because I have studied Roman Catholicism in depth on my own and studied the RCC in an orthodox RCIA program.

 

[Lance]

Becky:

because I simply cannot profess the following in good faith: I believe and profess all that the holy (Roman)* Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.*

And yes, I do know and understand what the RCC teaches because I have studied Roman Catholicism in depth on my own and studied the RCC in an orthodox RCIA program.

I can accept that but exactly what is it you don’t agree with?

 

[GoodME]

PXseeker:

Their primary motivations. IMO, are power and personal success; the good of needy and spiritual matters are secondary concerns, if even that high on their agendas.

Yeah, I have never heard of a Protestant minister having an agenda other than 100% service and subordination to his congregation.

 

[GoodME]

Lance:

The sins of our Priests and Bishops certainly have not helped. We really must look at ourselves and say that if so many were willing to accept Luther at that time, we surely had problems that the Bishops were not addressing.

The failings of the humans running the Church do not invalidate the Faith taught by the Church.

 

[GoodME]

conniejean:

So, instead of trying to explain it to her, I gave her the booklet “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.” A wonderful book to give to our Protestant friends! I’m not sure if she read it. I’m waiting for her to mention it to me, or ask me a question.

She probably burned it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=166777&postcount=1

 

[Becky]

Lance:

I can accept that but exactly what is it you don’t agree with?

For starters, I fully reject transubstantiation. I simply do not believe that something that tastes like bread and wine is the “Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” of Christ, and from what I was told by a priest and deacon the Eucharist is pretty much the core of the RCC.

becky

 

[p90]

Annunciata:

Why do you think that Protestants reject the Catholic Church?

…

I think it’s out of ingnorance of the Faith…if they really new what the Church teaches then they would be breaking down the doors!

As a Protestant, I reject the Roman Catholic denomination primarily because I am aware of its historical claims, not because I am ignorant of them. Many of these claims either cannot be supported by the patristic witness or are contradicted by it, and Newman’s efforts to overcome this difficulty are not convincing. There are other Protestants who reject your denomination for similar reasons. Have you considered this a possibility?

~Matt

 

[E.E.N.S]

I am sorry, but either you do NOT know history as well as you claim, or you are a liar…(I don’t mean to sound harsh, but it is as simple as that…)show my in history where the Catholic Church isn’t - or anything else to give some proofs for your claim.

And by the way, the Catholic Church is not a denomination…

 

[GoodME]

Becky:

For starters, I fully reject transubstantiation. I simply do not believe that something that tastes like bread and wine is the “Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity” of Christ, and from what I was told by a priest and deacon the Eucharist is pretty much the core of the RCC.

becky

You are in good company here - Scripture tells us that many who followed Jesus had trouble with this, and some left over it.

However, there were those who persevered and had Faith.

Scripture is clear - Jesus took the bread, gave thanks and broke the bread - saying “This is my Body”. That’s it. Period. No fancy Aramaic-to-Greek-to-Englsh translational problems. No problems with tense or gender in the language. Just plain and simple.

 

[GoodME]

p90:

Many of these claims either cannot be supported by the patristic witness or are contradicted by it, and Newman’s efforts to overcome this difficulty are not convincing.

So you would rather embrace a Faith that defines itself by what it is not “not Catholic”, rather than by what it is?

You would rather out your chips on the table with a Faith that is disconnected from the followers of the Apostles and the Faith handed down from them, not only through what were later compiled as NT Scriptures, but also from writings and teachings of Faith practice that were guarded and carried through the early years of the Church - to be passed on and emerge as the Roman Catholic Church (and the Eastern Orthodox Church)?

Do you deny that the Catholic Faith is the Faith as it is intended to be practiced by the Faithful - as passed to us by Jesus Himself through the Apostles? What is the basis for this denial?

Do you believe that the Church was “invented” by the Catholics in the 10th century?

How is that worse than a Church “invented” in the 16th century, or later, if that is what you really believe?

Sorry about my passion here - I believe ths stuff is important. If I didn’t care - I wouldn’t say anything to you.

 

[p90]

E.E.N.S.:

I am sorry, but either you do NOT know history as well as you claim, or you are a liar…(I don’t mean to sound harsh, but it is as simple as that…)show my in history where the Catholic Church isn’t - or anything else to give some proofs for your claim.

This thread isn’t about the historical claims of your denomination. It’s about why Protestants reject the Roman Catholic Church. Even if it was about defending my reasons for rejecting your church, why would I be interested in discussing such a large topic with someone who considers me either ignorant or a liar?

And by the way, the Catholic Church is not a denomination…

I view it as a single, united entity. That would be a denomination.

~Matt

 

[p90]

GoodME:

So you would rather embrace a Faith that defines itself by what it is not “not Catholic”, rather than by what it is?

Who said I did that? My faith isn’t defined by what is “not Catholic.”

Do you deny that the Catholic Faith is the Faith as it is intended to be practiced by the Faithful - as passed to us by Jesus Himself through the Apostles? What is the basis for this denial?

These two questions were answered in my original post.

Do you believe that the Church was “invented” by the Catholics in the 10th century?

No.

How is that worse than a Church “invented” in the 16th century, or later, if that is what you really believe?

My church wasn’t invented in the 16th century. I’m part of the body of believers that began at Pentacost.

~Matt

 

[E.E.N.S]

p90:

My church wasn’t invented in the 16th century. I’m part of the body of believers that began at Pentacost.

~Matt

This is why I said that you do NOT know history, because the “body of believers” at Pentecost were Catholic (maybe not yet in name, although Catholic means ‘universal,’ but in beliefs they were 100% Catholic! There can only be one body, which means only one truth…which ‘truth’ do you believe?

 

[Shibboleth]

E.E.N.S.:

This is why I said that you do NOT know history, because the “body of believers” at Pentecost were Catholic (maybe not yet in name, although Catholic means ‘universal,’ but in beliefs they were 100% Catholic! There can only be one body, which means only one truth…which ‘truth’ do you believe?

Yes this is how Catholics view the past but it is not what Protestants believe. It is not that he does not know history it is that he disagrees with the Catholic perception of history.

Even the most definitive things are subject to one’s own interpretation. My fiancé and I will fight over the color of a particular object… We are both viewing the same wavelengths of light yet we disagree as to what they are…

So when one looks back at the incredible intricacies of history, even though both people have the same KNOWLEDGE of events – their perception of those events may differ.

 

[GoodME]

To the posts about “history”,

Faith is just that, and it is not “fact”. It is belief.

If you subscribe to a scientific type of proof of history about the Church to formulate your belief, you would have to believe that Christianity was an invention of men reacting to the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD. THis cannot be “proven”, which aslo makes it a staement of Faith.

So, those are your logical options - Faith that the Church which we now call the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest form of the Church and was the keeper and guardian of the Faith left to us by Jesus through the early centuries, and continue to be the teacher and the practice of that Faith,

or

A belief that Chrisitanity was invented by men to take advantage of the disruption and destruction of the Jewish Faith and its practice by the Romans - by assuring the success of this spin-off by including non-Jews, thus greatly expanding the eligibility and scope of membership available to participate in this new “religion”, remebering that in absence of secular governing authorities, the Faith practice could exert that authority over society back then.

I gotta go with #1 above.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Jesus knew what he was doing…he wants unity in his Church and the Truth thereof…tell me, where is the unity in Protestant teaching (loaded question)…and what happens when you interpret the lineage of popes stright back to Peter (and thus Christ himself, since he gave Peter the authority to do so…)

Truth is truth, Jesus is Truth, Jesus is one, and so must his Church be…you can’t say that the is a unified body outside the Church simply because outside of the Church there is no unity of Truth!

You may think that this is up to one’s own interpretation, but it is not! If Jesus gave Peter the power to ‘bind’ something, then you must ask, “did he bind anything?” Yes, he absolutely did! Read the writings of the early christians and it is PERFECTLY clear on what they believed.

This is NOT my interpretation…I rest my faith in Christ’s Church, because I believe what Christ himself said to be true. I do not need to try to skew its meaning to fit what I would prefer to believe. But I am most convinced that what I am saying is not reaching you, because you are blinded to the Truth (as well as a huge lot of Catholics as well - anyone who say “I believe this, BUT…” is in that category)…

I am a convert to Catholicism…I was a very passionate Protestant at one time, but I was always praying that I come to do God’s will and not my own, in the Fullness of His Truth and not my own…and when studying both side of the fence (anti-Catholic and things from 'the horse’s mouth/Catholic)…It is FACT not interpretation of the defining events in history! (Does anyone think it is not a fact that Martin Luther protested the Church when he nail the 95 Thesis to the door? No…same as for the rest.)
Please do not use your lack of understanding/knowledge as ‘fact’
when that is simply not the case.

Thank you for reading my ramblings,
God bless.

 

[Shibboleth]

GoodME:

So, those are your logical options - Faith that the Church which we now call the Roman Catholic Church was the earliest form of the Church and was the keeper and guardian of the Faith left to us by Jesus through the early centuries, and continue to be the teacher and the practice of that Faith,

or

A belief that Chrisitanity was invented by men to take advantage of the disruption and destruction of the Jewish Faith and its practice by the Romans - by assuring the success of this spin-off by including non-Jews, thus greatly expanding the eligibility and scope of membership available to participate in this new “religion”, remebering that in absence of secular governing authorities, the Faith practice could exert that authority over society back then.

I gotta go with #1 above.

Lutherans beleive that Christ left his Church also… just for clarity on Protestantism so that these mistakes are not made. Of course Catholics will disagree with this statements from the M Synod.

The word “church” (ecclesia) in the New Testament is used to refer both to the church in the strict sense of all believers in Christ of all times and places, and to the church in the broader sense of visible assemblies gathered around Word and sacraments. St. Paul refers to the church in the stricter sense in 1 Cor. 1:2 as "all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ–their Lord and ours… . This is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12), whose membership is known only to God, for He alone can see into the human heart and know whether true faith in Christ is present (thus it is “invisible” to the human eye and is an article of faith). In the Apostles Creed we confess that we believe in “the Holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.”

At the same time, the New Testament uses the term “church” to refer to the external (“visible” to the human eye) communities (assemblies) of those who profess to be Christians and gather around the means of grace, Word and sacraments. For example, Paul addresses his epistle “to the churches in Galatia.” This broader sense of the term refers to the various congregations in the Roman province of Galatia. These external communities included both true Christians (with true faith in the heart) and unbelievers and hypocrites who were members in name only.

Our Lutheran Confessions and LCMS fathers have historically and consistently made a distinction between the church “invisible” and “visible.” For instance, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, the first President of our church, in his 1851 Theses on Church and Ministry writes: “The church in the proper sense of the word is invisible.” At the same time, Walther also writes: “In an improper sense Scripture calls also those visible communions ‘churches’ which, though consisting not only of believers or such as are sanctified by faith, but having also hypocrites and wicked persons, nevertheless teach the Gospel in its purity and administer the holy sacraments according to the Gospel.” (emphases added)

In response to the question “What is the holy Christian church?” our synodical catechism states, “The holy Christian church is the communion of saints, the total number of those who believe in Christ. All believers in Christ, but only believers, are members of the church (invisible church)”