What Made You Switch??

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Newsy

The thing to remember is that there is a difference between “Leaving the Church” and never finding the Church to begin with. This is a very important distinction. I cannot find the quote but there is a reference concerning the danger to a person who chooses to remain outside of the Church once they are convinced that the Church is true.
We cannot hold to this same standard those who have not been properly exposed to the Church.

Read this section of the Catechism. It will help to clarify…Especially 846-848 which speaks to the issue of salvation outside the Church.

Peace
James

 

[Newsy]

The thing to remember is that there is a difference between “Leaving the Church” and never finding the Church to begin with. This is a very important distinction. I cannot find the quote but there is a reference concerning the danger to a person who chooses to remain outside of the Church once they are convinced that the Church is true.
We cannot hold to this same standard those who have not been properly exposed to the Church.

Read this section of the Catechism. It will help to clarify…Especially 846-848 which speaks to the issue of salvation outside the Church.

Peace
James

That is what I was referring to. If you leave the Church, it’s up to His mercy. I was making reference to those outside the Church, without exposure to the Catholic Church. Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear.

 

[Tony888]

You may be referring to Matthew 12:31-32 where Jesus says to the Pharisees
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”

So, somebody who rejects the church for Atheism might be at risk. However, I don’t see it the same way if they continued to follow Christ’s commandments, read scripture, pray, and attend/support their local protestant church.

The thing to remember is that there is a difference between “Leaving the Church” and never finding the Church to begin with. This is a very important distinction. I cannot find the quote but there is a reference concerning the danger to a person who chooses to remain outside of the Church once they are convinced that the Church is true.
We cannot hold to this same standard those who have not been properly exposed to the Church.

Read this section of the Catechism. It will help to clarify…Especially 846-848 which speaks to the issue of salvation outside the Church.

Peace
James

 

[cheese_sdc]

I left Catholicism and started going to the Unitarian Universalist Church because I no longer believed in the Divinity of Jesus, no longer believed that scripture is inerrant, and no longer believe in a loving Deity, of any type.

 

[lutherlic]

On a previous thread I had, the Catholic members didn’t have a problem with open gay priests.

They should have! Perhaps it wasn’t expressed clearly. I can think of 3 possibilities for what you may mean by “open gay priests”:

First, perhaps the comments were of priests who are afflicted with same sex attraction but who are chaste and (for Latin Rite) celibate, being “openly” gay only in as much as admitting their struggle with this burden and who condemn the “homosexual lifestyle” as sinful, disordered, unnatural and contrary to God’s plan. If THAT is what was discussed then not “having a problem” would be understandable.

The second possibility is a similar, priests who possibly have same sex attraction but who approve of the homosexual lifestyle (seeking and engaging members of the same sex for sexual acts, in a “committed relationship” or otherwise). That would be highly scandalous and endanger souls. If that is the case, it is most certainly not OK and all faithful Catholics should have a serious “problem” with it.

The third possibility is that the priest himself is engaged in homosexual acts. That carries all the issues of the second possibility plus scandalous sins against chastity and breaking of promises or vows of celibacy.

My issue with the ELCA on this point was the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle , not only in general, but now openly acceptable for pastors. That is complete acceptance of seriously sinful acts and denial of God’s will as revealed to us. BTW - other Lutheran synods including LCMS (2nd largest in US), WELS (3rd largest in US) and ALCC share the Catholic perspective on this.

So this is one of the reasons I left the ELCA and no, it is most certainly not the same on the Catholic side!

 

[15thClub]

For me, it was a struggle of a little over 40 years. I was born into the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod (LCMS). I was baptized, regularly attended Sunday School, became an altar acolyte, went through the two years of confirmation class where there were times I thought I was having Luther’s Small Catechism literally pounded into my head. Upon confirmation, I took on more responsibilities in the church, became a Sunday School Teacher myself until I left for college. Lest I forget, the Lutherans ESPECIALLY the LCMS is not Catholic friendly. As far as the LCMS is concerned, Catholics from the Pope on down (to me now) are misguided heretics and they don’t have a problem letting you know their position. Martin Luther is iconized to the point that you get the impression that he’s the fourth person of the Trinity. When you get a real historical look at Luther from many (operative word MANY) independent sources outside of both the LCMS and the RCC, you come away with the undeniable conclusion that Martin Luther just ain’t what the LCMS make him out to be. I formally left the LCMS in early 1981 after enduring 12 years of that nasty schism between the conservatives led by J.A.O. Preus and the moderates led by John Tietjen. LCMS conservatives maintain the binary attitude that either you are conservative in your belief or you are a liberal and pretty much the equivalent of the spawn of Satan. The institutional infighting was fierce and the “Feud in St. Louie” found its way into all of the churches. By the time it was finally settled sometime in the 1980’s, approximately 200,000 people left the LCMS. This was somewhere between 8-10% of the total membership and that’s a pretty big number. As for myself, I didn’t know who’s side to take for all I could see was people on both sides behaving very very badly and EVERYONE thought God was on their side. The LCMS will say they are ecumenical but they are not. They’re smug and stiff necked falling back on their confessional belief that their view of the “inspired word of God” that they maintain is pure from their (actually Luther’s) interpretation must be paramount first before they engage “outsiders.” One cannot deny that the LCMS is an Orthodox Christian Church but the common denominator they operate by is fear. A few days ago, I paused to take a look back (which can be hazardous as Lot’s wife would say if she could) and realized that I had not put one foot on LCMS property in over 30 years. The LCMS “boasts” a membership of about 2.6 million. The entire Lutheran "movement is divided up into various “Synods” and while there is basic agreement over a considerable range of theological dogmas and issues, they internally fight like the Devil over the small stuff so there is a bunch of inner Synod strife always going on. The very fact that the Lutheran movement still survives just may be a miracle in itself. I’m Catholic now and I am at peace. It took many years of a very hard look at the RCC before I committed simply I didn’t want lightening to strike twice, once was enough. And after many years of independent research, thought, discussion, and of course prayer, I can say two things no active or ex-Lutheran would dare say but I will say it here. 1) The Catholic Church IS the first church and 2) The Catholic Church IS the true church of Jesus Christ. While separated Orthodox brethren share in salvation, they are nonetheless, a scattered lot.

 

[jesuspsr]

I love reading these stories.

Me to.

God bless

jesus g

 

[Legal_Eagle]

I was reading the history of early Christianity when I realized that the first Christians – who learned their religion from the Apostles’ own lips – were Catholic. Protestantism is 16 centuries too late to be true – and there are thousands of conflicting and competing opinions in Protestantland about what is “true.” Jesus didn’t leave us a book when He returned to heaven. He left us the Catholic Church. All Protestant ecclesial communities (there’s only one Church) are based on different interpretations of the Bible – but it didn’t exist per se until the end of the fourth century, produced by the Catholic Church. The Church was the Agent of the Holy Spirit in writing the New Testament and compiling the Bible. She is nearly 400 years older than the Bible. The Bible is a Catholic book.

Could not have said it better myself.

I would, however, add this: When you consider that the Catholic Church, with the successor of St. Peter as its earthly head, is the only Church that has held together over 2,000 years it takes your breath away. The Orthodox Churches have held together reasonably well, but they have fragmented along ethnic lines. The Protestant communities? Depending on who does the counting there are either thousands or tens of thousands of denominations with more non-denominational groups popping up all the time. This ***is not ***what Christ wanted. So in addition to the excellent points made by Jim Dandy, I would say that the unity of the Church juxtaposed to the fragmentation and disarray of the Protestant communities was a major factor for me.

Peace,

 

[cemiller]

I love reading these stories.

I really like them too

 

[Rhuarc]

The Eucharist…

I was raised in the southern baptist church. I was just a kid, but remember that the Lord’s Supper (as we called it) only occurred several times a year. There was always a lot of fuss over who would prepare it, the white loaf bread had to be cut into tiny cubes and grape juice poured into little glass vials. There was more fuss over who was qualified to distribute it and then who had to clean up afterwards. It seemed that everyone became super reverant for a few minutes and then broke out of it and returned to thmselves. We never left the pew. I’m old enough to remember going to the fast food restaurant and they would bring your order out to the car on a tray that clipped to the side of your car. That’s what the Lord’s Supper reminded me of, mushy, bland, quick. Nobody went to the church during the week to pray, the church was locked.

During college I began attending the Catholic university parish with some friends. The Eucharist occurred at every mass. At first I thought it was ritualistic and idolatrous, after all it was just bread, right? Then I came to undertand that Christ is truly present. This wasn’t something that someone told me and I just said “ok.” it was one of those aha moments where you feel like somone has smacked you on the back of the head and you suddenly “get it” with every fiber of your being. Even if I didn’t already believe this, the idea that Christ has the power to be truly present if he wanted is still an amazing thing to think about. The Eucharist mystically puts us at Calvary where the crucifiction is eternal, not just something that occurred two thousand years ago and remember every now and then.

The Eucharist became the center of my worship experience at mass. I love the reverence that we give to the lord when we genuflect before the tabernacle and the comfort knowing that he is physically present there. I love that we use wine, a living, breathing liquid and not grape juice that has to be sterilized to prevent fermentation or, the worst, an artificial, grape flavored “drink.” The church was open at all hours and I could go there after evening classes if I wanted. I could go to mass every day. Without the Eucharist a Protestant church now just feels like a town meeting, with a professional, paid speech giver (often very emotional) and music as entertainment. I’m not saying this to be offensive, but it is the comparison that I feel emotionally when I have gone back to visit.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some insight. I could probably go on for several more paragraphs, but essentially it was the Eucharist.

Yeah thats how I feel about protestant churches too. If there isn’t any ritual why bother going to church? I could just watch the thing on tv and get the same exact thing. It feels too bland and plain I love the Eucharist.

 

[Izdaari]

I haven’t switched… not between Protestant and Catholic anyway.

I’ve switched from no particular beliefs at all to Christian. And from immature Christian with no roots to confused seeker, to rationalist skeptic, to syncretic Eastern mystic, and back to Christian again. That last change seems quite stable – I’ve been there for 35 years or so.

Catholicism was never really on my radar, nor Orthodoxy. That is, I’ve known they existed and have always considered them valid forms of Christianity, but I didn’t know much more about them and they were culturally alien to me. Now I have learned more about them, and am still learning. If I should become convinced that either of them has more of the truth than the Protestant tradition, I could possibly switch.

It is likely in any case that I’ll switch denominations from Assemblies of God to Anglican/Episcopal, because I am really more a mainline Protestant in the Anglican style than a conservative evangelical. Other than that? We Shall See.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

But shouldn’t truth be the reason anyone converts to anything?

God bless

A question to you: are we converted by intelligence or by the heart (will, feelings)?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The council of Trent was not in 400 AD - it was much later - 1545 to 1563.
It’s contribution to the Bible was that it reaffirmed the canon as set by earlier councils and officially “Closed” the canon - which was in response to the the “tampering” that was going on in the Protestant world.

Councils approving the canon:

Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
The Council of Nicea (787)
The Council of Nicea II in 787 ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches.
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent

Peace
James

You studied the subject, so we could say that the definite saying started in 382.
The others did not say anything new, withgt?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Really doesn’t matter what they thought, it doesn’t change the Church’s teaching. Until the last 50 years or so, every christian church agreed that men were called to either marriage (1man +1 woman) or celibacy (no relations outside of marriage). Anything outside the covenant of marriage is a sin, no matter how some respond on a forum in cyberspace.

Funny: what a open gay priest is?
Would be very roughly the equivalent a open married priest, no?

 

[Georgia]

I always felt drawn to the Eucharist, so I would have to say that was the spark that led me to the church. As a Fundamentalist, I had the chance for communion once per month. There was always a mini-sermon after the regular one, a short talk that included the readings about the Last Supper. I could not square the words about the seriousness of taking the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily with our interpretation that it was only symbolic and was, therefore, not really the Body and Blood of Christ.

Oh, there were other things too, but I think I felt something about the Eucharist from the time I was a teenager. As I read more and more, I knew there was only one place where I felt the pieces all joined properly, Mother Church.

 

[JRKH]

You studied the subject, so we could say that the definite saying started in 382.
The others did not say anything new, withgt?

Not sure what your point is here but - Yes we can say that the other councils did not add or subtract anything - as far as what the councils “say” - I view it as solid historical evidence of the Holy Spirit re-confirming the accepted 73 book canon.

Set this evidence against the manner in which the 66 book canon was arrived at and one should quickly see which is more likely to have been “Spirit Guided”.

Peace
James

 

[cemiller]

Funny: what a open gay priest is?
Would be very roughly the equivalent a open married priest, no?

A gay priest and a married priest are completely different. For one the celibate priesthood in the Latin Rite of the RCC is a disipline that could very well change (though unlikely). As I’m sure you know there are plenty of married Priests in the Eastern Rites of the Church. Marriage is in no way sinful, it is a sacrament.

On the other hand homosexuality is a grave and mortal sin and has never been allowed or condoned.

 

[sallybutler]

A question to you: are we converted by intelligence or by the heart (will, feelings)?

I think God meets each person where they are. For some it be through their intelligence (logic, reason, etc) for others it would be through the heart (feelings, emotion). But all are asked to make their will subject to God’s.

 

[Newsy]

I think God meets each person where they are. For some it be through their intelligence (logic, reason, etc) for others it would be through the heart (feelings, emotion). But all are asked to make their will subject to God’s.

Great point!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Not sure what your point is here but - Yes we can say that the other councils did not add or subtract anything - as far as what the councils “say” - I view it as solid historical evidence of the Holy Spirit re-confirming the accepted 73 book canon.

Set this evidence against the manner in which the 66 book canon was arrived at and one should quickly see which is more likely to have been “Spirit Guided”.

Peace
James

thanks that’s it