Why Be Protestant?

[GaryTaylor]

If the Catholic Church doesn’t have the Truth, then it doesn’t exist. We didn’t arrive here by accident. I will say the reformation helped spread the gospel, be it a corrupt version, which we are trying to correct today and we will.

So thanks for the missionary work , only difference now is you’ve become the missionary work. I know we’ve been neglecting you, but we love and didn’t forget you!

Didn’t you know Jesus Christs best friends started the Catholic Church?

 

[qOcOp]

Of course, but you are forgetting that many aren’t at all sure that the Catholic Church is the one that has the objective truth. The objective truth is something that by definition is practically impossible to determine, and what one person (or church, or organisation, or belief system) believes to be the objective truth is in fact still their subjective view of truth in the eyes of others. It remains an opinion, and regardless of what evidence, empirical or spiritual, is presented, it remains incomplete. I appreciate that members of a faith believe it to be the one truth, but not everybody will agree, and people will leave…

As you admit yourself the objective truth is not impossible to determine and therefore not impossible to reach when searching for it in Religion. This then means the True Faith can be found with Logic and Reason which are (correct me if I’m wrong) the very tools that we use which have allowed us to come to the objective Truth in Mathematics and Science.

In conclusion this means the True Faith can back up their claim of being the True Religion by the use of Logic and Reason. Since this is the case there is a limited amount of valid reasons one can have for not finding this True Faith. Refusal to join or stay with this Religion just because “you don’t like it” or because “it doesn’t feel right" will not be constituted as a valid reason.

I beg to differ. Seeking God does not always involve pride and idolising oneself. It is usually just that: seeking God. Seeking the objective truth, if you wish.

Seeking God should never involve pride or idolising oneself, that is my point. However when a person only follows what they like then they are sadly doing just the opposite and therefore committing idolatry.

 

[qOcOp]

I believe the “Truth” that the Catholic Church claims to possess is “revealed truth” rather than “objective truth”.

Objective truth encompasses all truth including revealed truth and the truth that is yet to be revealed. .

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why be Protestant (or Baptist )?

What are Catholics missing by being Catholic?

Begin by considering the following creed which contains many of the fundamentals of our Catholic faith:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

+++

Was anything significant omitted?

If not, why should someone leave the Catholic Church in order to become some variety of Protestant (or Baptist)?

I’m certainly not advocating that anyone leave the Catholic Church (much less become a Baptist!), so I can ONLY answer for myself. No, I don’t think anything truly significant has been left out of the Creed, nor would many, many Protestants think that either.

1. If the church is by its nature semper reformandi (and I think it is), then I also think that some of the mechanisms and structures that ultimately come out of classical Protestantism have a much better chance of actually functioning—and ushering in a church that looks more like the City of God and less like the City of Man. But since the Catholic Church has already adopted many of the reforms advocated during the Reformation, then certainly the reason to NOT be a Catholic should be less compelling.
2. If “to be steeped in history is to cease being a Protestant” then for me, to keep on reading even more history is to cease being Catholic. I find the Catholic view of history and Christian Tradition, at least as it’s often expressed here, to be pretty skewed and parochial. So in response to “what Catholics are missing out on,” I think it’s a more reasoned and fuller understanding of the nature of the Church— one that takes history more completely into account.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Well, perhaps he does not like your version of the Creed.

Here’s a better one:

“Better”? It’s different in language presentation, and actually very close to what we have coming in December, (closer to the Latin), but it IS the same creed, so I’m weary about your use of the word “better”

Just out of curiosity, I see you’re Anglican. Does this version come from the Anglican tradition? I like the flow, and I’m really looking forward to our shift closer to ecclesial Latin at the next Advent.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Cat]

When I was evangelical Protestant, I would have answered this question by saying, “Because Protestant churches are closest to the New Testament church. The Catholics have added so much through the years, while Protestant churches have stripped all the man-made rituals away and use the simple formula for “church” described in Acts 2: 42-47.”

Today, I would say that the main reason to be Protestant is the music. I’ve been Catholic since 2004, and I have basically given up hope that Catholics will ever get good music in their Masses. I know that the Mass is not a “music” service. Please don’t tell me that again, because I understand all of that. I KNOW that the Mass is heaven come down to earth. I KNOW that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. I KNOW that Jesus Himself is Truly Present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, during even the simplest, plainest, most un-musical Mass.

I also know that if people are doing their very best, that the music is beautiful to God, and therefore, I find it beautiful and uplifting. I especially like hearing people I know cantor or play or sing in the choir–their righteous lives and loving hearts makes their less-than-brilliant music seem like angel songs.

But knowing all this, I still like good music, and I wish we had good music in the Mass! I don’t care if it’s ancient or modern, I just would like to hear some professional-sounding choir music, hearty congregational singing, and thrilling instrumentals.

Most people in the U.S. like music. And I think that’s one of the main reasons why so many people attend Protestant churches, and why so many Catholics leave Catholic churches–for the really awesome music, both traditional and contemporary, in Protestant churches. People in the U.S. carry their music around with them and listen to it almost non-stop. So we are kidding ourselves if we think that music in Mass doesn’t matter to most Americans.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

“Better”? It’s different in language presentation, and actually very close to what we have coming in December, (closer to the Latin), but it IS the same creed, so I’m weary about your use of the word “better”

Just out of curiosity, I see you’re Anglican. Does this version come from the Anglican tradition? I like the flow, and I’m really looking forward to our shift closer to ecclesial Latin at the next Advent.

Blessings,

Steven

This is the Greek Orthodox version. Many Anglicans will use a similar version. Officially, Anglicanism no longer employs the filioque, although I have heard it in Anglo Catholic churches.

“Better” in the theological sense because of the lack of the filioque in the Orthodox and Anglican versions.

Again, the filioque is a metaphore for “why be Protestant”: to avoid innovations. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out like the Reformers wanted, which is why many of us are now looking East (or to Rome).

 

[Juliebug108]

Why be Protestant (or Baptist )?

What are Catholics missing by being Catholic?

Begin by considering the following creed which contains many of the fundamentals of our Catholic faith:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

+++

Was anything significant omitted?

If not, why should someone leave the Catholic Church in order to become some variety of Protestant (or Baptist)?

The Lutheran church accepts the Nicene Creed…in those exact words. Being protestant for me has more to do with things like infallibility, indulgences, the immaculate conception, intercessory prayer to the saints…those are more the issues that keep me in the protestant church…

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[SyCarl]

If one can accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church, then there would be no reason or benefit in leaving. If, however, one can seriously not accept a doctrine required for belief by the Catholic Church it would be hypocritical to remain. I don’t mean not accepting for reasons of convenience but from the conviction that something taught is not true.

 

[StevenFrancis]

This is the Greek Orthodox version. Many Anglicans will use a similar version. Officially, Anglicanism no longer employs the filioque, although I have heard it in Anglo Catholic churches.

“Better” in the theological sense because of the lack of the filioque in the Orthodox and Anglican versions.

Again, the filioque is a metaphore for “why be Protestant”: to avoid innovations. Unfortunately, things didn’t work out like the Reformers wanted, which is why many of us are now looking East (or to Rome).

Thank you. I’ve only been Catholic for a few years, and while I have only a pedestrian knowledge of filioque, I do know that it’s a very old issue, and played a token part in the ideological split leading to the schism nearly 600 years after it’s delaration as dogma. That the Latin translation from the Greek, while making fine sense in Latin, an help to put a kabosh on the Arian heretical ideas springing up in Spain, never quite translated well back INTO Greek, and so when it was adopted into common norm in the Latin Church, it caused more friction, rather than simply being the re-inforcment of trinity which I believe the Latin Church was intending to convey. It seems a quite useful phrase to the understanding of trinity. Does it go so far as the Eastern world not visualizing Jesus as being consubstantial with the father? Is it something that large? Or are the languages of Latin and Greek just different enough that for the the Greek mind must not have it in order to get the same understanding that the Latin mind gets when they DO have it in there. I guess I’m wondering if the schism was over something to be solved by a philologist, rather than a theologian. (Wouldn’t that be a knee slapper?) ;-). Easier to rectify eventually though, than some fundamental agreement of nature of our SHARED trinitarian God. Off to study more about this.

Oh…here’s the new translation to be adopted by the English speaking Western Catholic world in December:

*I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit
was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake
he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated
at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father and the Son,
*who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
And one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection
of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

**

And while the language seems to closer to the Latin, I note that it does indeed still employ the filioque.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. If “to be steeped in history is to cease being a Protestant” then for me, to keep on reading even more history is to cease being Catholic.

What history are you reading? I would think a review of the writings of the Early Church Fathers would present an overwhelmingly Catholic view of the early Church and its beliefs, eh?

I find the Catholic view of history and Christian Tradition, at least as it’s often expressed here, to be pretty skewed and parochial.

True to a large extent. But you have to remember, Dave, that a lot of posters here are relatively new to the world of apologetics. Sometimes the “eager beavers” make me cringe, too, but it’s a learning process. Fair enough?

So in response to “what Catholics are missing out on,” I think it’s a more reasoned and fuller understanding of the nature of the Church— one that takes history more completely into account.

Gotta take issue with this one. The Catholic Church had spread the gospel all over the world for 1500 years producing some of the greatest saints in Christian history (along with some genuine scoundrels) along the way.

The current state of Protestantism (XX,000 distinct denominations and growing) is a sad indictment of Protestantisms understanding of the nature of the Church, IMHO.

Any objective reading of history should be sufficient to convince a neutral reader that the Church has been and continues to fulfill its mission to “make disciples of all nations.”

 

[Nicea325]

Well, there is much to be said for sticking with the original.

I sense you are being purposely provocative with your question, so I hope my response is not impertinent. Arguably, your version of the Creed, with the filioque imperiously added, is a manifestation of the very problem that many Protestants and Orthodox see in Rome.

Is your new, improved version of the Creed sufficiently better that one should leave the Orthodox Catholic Church and cause a schism? Protestantism never arose in the areas of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that didn’t change the Creed. Perhaps if Rome didn’t innovate, Protestantism would have been necessary.

Not entirely true. Time to read history my friend. First of all,read the ORIGINAL creed (325) and compare it to the 381 Creed? Did the Church IMPERIOUSLY change it? What you fail to understand is the fact the church can make changes due to its AUTHORITY. And why? Heresies as the one with Arius which led to the Creed in the first place. As for the misunderstood filioque? The following individuals do not support your view.
The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.”

Tertullian

“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).

Maximus the Confessor

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Basil The Great

“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47).

“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).

The Athanasian Creed

“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

Council of Nicaea II

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Lutheran church accepts the Nicene Creed…in those exact words. Being protestant for me has more to do with things like infallibility, indulgences, the immaculate conception, intercessory prayer to the saints…those are more the issues that keep me in the protestant church…

Peace and blessings,
Julie

So, you’re not specifically attracted to “positive” things about Protestantism so much as you’re repelled by the “negative” things about Catholicism. Is that it?

My bet is that if we met for a few Saturday mornings at a Starbucks to discuss your list above, you’d come away with a much deeper appreciation for them.

 

[graceandglory]

Why be Protestant (or Baptist )?

What are Catholics missing by being Catholic?

Begin by considering the following creed which contains many of the fundamentals of our Catholic faith:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

+++

Was anything significant omitted?

If not, why should someone leave the Catholic Church in order to become some variety of Protestant (or Baptist)?

Better bands?
Better looking preachers with better hair and suits?
Able to wear jeans to church?

I get to be my own authority and nobody tells me what to do or believe.

better youth groups
more parties
parties all the time
party, party, party
oh yeah, we call it “fellowship.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

If one can accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church, then there would be no reason or benefit in leaving. If, however, one can seriously not accept a doctrine required for belief by the Catholic Church it would be hypocritical to remain. I don’t mean not accepting for reasons of convenience but from the conviction that something taught is not true.

That makes sense. You didn’t offer a compelling reason to embrace Protestantism in some form, of course, but I see your point.

 

[Juliebug108]

So, you’re not specifically attracted to “positive” things about Protestantism so much as you’re repelled by the “negative” things about Catholicism. Is that it?

My bet is that if we met for a few Saturday mornings at a Starbucks to discuss your list above, you’d come away with a much deeper appreciation for them.

Sigh. I’m in a weird spot of being repelled by negative things in the Lutheran church, but trying to hold on to what I’ve been raised with…and finding I agree with much of Catholicism…but being really bothered by certain other things. It’s frustrating me. I’m in a state of profound spiritual growth…and just trying to figure out what God wants from me.

But anywho, you’re statement is pretty much correct.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[ConsciousCoward]

For many, it’s the fact that they were raised in a Protestant church, so they believe that the catholic church is flawed just as strongly as Catholics believe that it isn’t.

For some, the Catholics themselves keep them out. I’ll be honest, I don’t have a problem with Catholicism. There are a few little details that, though theologically significant, are irrelevant to the topic of salvation. But continuing with the honesty, whenever a question about Protestants comes up on this forum, the only answers the catholic members seem to give are “They just want shallow and fun services” or “they really don’t understand anything.” There is, with only a few exceptions, an incredibly prejudice view presented.

Don’t get me wrong, having strong faith is important. But failing to treat brothers and sisters in Christ as family will only serve to push them away.

That said, Protestantism isn’t really easier. The people that don’t care just go through the motions, just like Catholics that don’t care, and those who are devout hold to a strict personal discipline, just like devout Catholics. The biggest reason someone devout would be Protestant is because they came to the conclusion, through the study of the Bible and history, that the catholic church became broken at some point and that the best thing for the church was to prune the rotting branches from the vine. Usually, I hear people say that the rise of the bishop of Rome from equal to ruler of the church was the moment corruption was allowed in. Because of beliefs like that, they pick Protestantism.

Really, Protestantism vs. Catholicism boils down to a matter of interpretation.

 

[Smugleaf]

As you admit yourself the objective truth is not impossible to determine and therefore not impossible to reach when searching for it in Religion.

Nope, never said that. I said it may be sought, not that it may be determined.

For many, it’s the fact that they were raised in a Protestant church, so they believe that the catholic church is flawed just as strongly as Catholics believe that it isn’t.

For some, the Catholics themselves keep them out. I’ll be honest, I don’t have a problem with Catholicism. There are a few little details that, though theologically significant, are irrelevant to the topic of salvation. But continuing with the honesty, whenever a question about Protestants comes up on this forum, the only answers the catholic members seem to give are “They just want shallow and fun services” or “they really don’t understand anything.” There is, with only a few exceptions, an incredibly prejudice view presented.

Don’t get me wrong, having strong faith is important. But failing to treat brothers and sisters in Christ as family will only serve to push them away.

That said, Protestantism isn’t really easier. The people that don’t care just go through the motions, just like Catholics that don’t care, and those who are devout hold to a strict personal discipline, just like devout Catholics. The biggest reason someone devout would be Protestant is because they came to the conclusion, through the study of the Bible and history, that the catholic church became broken at some point and that the best thing for the church was to prune the rotting branches from the vine. Usually, I hear people say that the rise of the bishop of Rome from equal to ruler of the church was the moment corruption was allowed in. Because of beliefs like that, they pick Protestantism.

Really, Protestantism vs. Catholicism boils down to a matter of interpretation.

Thank you for this post, I agree completely. Don’t worry though, nobody with “Catholic” in their religion field will actually listen to your eloquent explanation, as they’re too busy smugly congratulating each other on “excellent points” that serve to reinforce their belief that only their denomination holds the truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong. /bitter

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Not entirely true. Time to read history my friend. First of all,read the ORIGINAL creed (325) and compare it to the 381 Creed?

What is not entirely true? In neither the 325 Creed nor in the 381 Creed did it say “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. And quoting a few fathers that supported the wording “from the Father through the son” does not mean that they would have had that wording, or the more troublesome filioque, inserted in the Creed. I don’t follow your reasoning.

Did the Church IMPERIOUSLY change it?

No, the Bishop of Rome imperiously changed it. Orthodox and Protestants do not accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And as a result of this change, he was excommunicated by the other four apostolic sees.

What you fail to understand is the fact the church can make changes due to its AUTHORITY.

Yes, the Church could theoretically make changes to the Creed by calling an Ecumenical Council. Whether she would is another question.

You equate “the Bishop of Rome” with “the Church”. This is the main issue. As the Great Schism unequivocally shows, Rome could not “make changes due to its authority”. Whatever the merits of the filioque, however well it can be reconciled today with orthodox Christianity, the fact is that the Bishop of Rome sought to change the wording of the Nicene Creed and the Church rejected his authority.

Since the Great Schism of 1054, the Bishop of Rome has innovated further with the dogma of purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception and papal infallibility. These are all troublesome for Protestant and Orthodox alike and do not, in my opinion, enjoy support from the consensus of the Fathers.

Why be Protestant (or Orthodox)? Because one rejects the notion that the Bishop of Rome is somehow above the apostolic Deposit of the Faith (as reflected in Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers).

 

[Izdaari]

Why be Protestant (or Baptist )?

What are Catholics missing by being Catholic?

Begin by considering the following creed which contains many of the fundamentals of our Catholic faith:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

+++

Was anything significant omitted?

If not, why should someone leave the Catholic Church in order to become some variety of Protestant (or Baptist)?

Well, we agree on the Nicene Creed (in whatever version, I’m not too picky), so we have at least that in common.

I didn’t really decide to become Protestant. I decided to become Christian, and the Baptist flavor of it was the first I was acquainted with. Then I became acquainted with several other Protestant denominations, and eventually I found my present mainstream (i.e., trinitarian and non-wacky) Pentecostal flavor, which is not quite perfect but it rings true and fits well.

I didn’t know much about Catholicism 'til much more recently, but now I’m fairly well acquainted with it, thanks to this forum and to several favorite Catholic authors… and I’m still unconvinced by it. I have no problem with Catholicism being a valid version of Christianity, and there’s a lot I admire about it… but I don’t believe it’s better than my AG church, or that it’s more what Christ had in mind. I can agree with some 90% of the Catholic Catechism (which I have on the desk beside me), but the remaining 10%, not so much.