Why I Can't be Protestant

[CopticChristian]

Call it what you want, but it’s not based on extra scripture. If your argument is that Catholicism has the correct interpretation, that’s a valid point. But having a different view on Patristics or publishing a work that explains the theology of a certain Christian group is quite different from Mormonism, which claims that its work are all scripture, equal to the Bible (if not superior, as the Bible is only the word of God “so long as it is translated correctly”).

Would you rather sit through a Mormon service as a opposed to a Lutheran one, or an Evangelical one?

Personally if one day (God willing) I have a child, and he or she comes up to me and says they want to convert to Catholicism, I would accept it. I might have the dismay or a parent who wishes his child would have the same faith, but I wouldn’t be scandalized. However if he or she decided to convert to Mormonism, I think I’d probably break down right there. You simply cannot compare the two.

Thank you. I addressed the issue of Mormonism as you discussed it. I have no argument. I cannot be Protestant.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dear OP

You seem to have a HUGE chip on your shoudler against protestants and Mormons. You have now started at least 3 threads on how you can’t be protestant, many with some very confussing and odd arguements.

You are also falling into the annoying habit of assuming that any non catholic religon is protestant, and that they are basically all the same. This is very far from the truth. As a Lutheran MS I am offended that you would imply that we think the Augsburg confession is on par with the Bible as sacred Scripture. It’s not, it is a statement of beliefs for our denomination, just as the Catholic Catischism is for you.

The Mormons hold all of their books as scripture, this is radically different from the concept of a catichism or a confession. Not to mention Mormons aren’t considered Christian as they do not believe in the Trinity. They are not a cult, but they are an enitrely different religon. To lump them in with any Christian denomination is wrong. So is assuming that because the Baptists believe one thing, all other protestants do as well.

You seem to just want to start trash and make fun of protestants threads, which just comes off as spiteful and rude. It’s also very offputting. It’s funny that most protestants I know, myself included have very little issues with the doctrine or practices of the Catholic Church in general. Often our biggest hurdle to ever wanting to explore being Catholic is the arogant and ****** attitude that so many of you exhibit.

You demand we respect your believes, but you cannot or willnot extend the same courtesy to us. You scream and kick and get angry when protestants misquote or misinterpret Catholic customs and teachings, but you do the exact same thing to us, and call us liars to boot. To paraphase your question…I cannot be catholic because of this exact attitude.

I have questions for you…Why do you hate Non Catholics so much? What do you hope to gain by posting threads bashing protestants?

This is a thoughtful post inferring many things, stating many things. This is Catholic Answers and my post is in Non-Catholic. Catholics are not Protestants. Many Catholics have views about why they cannot be Protestant. I would imagine that you cannot answer the inquiry as to why you can’t be Protestant.

 

[CopticChristian]

I couldn’t agree with this more. Quite honestly, the reason that it took me so long to become Catholic is exactly because of threads like these and the unkindness I was shown by Catholics. All it took was one courteous Catholic speaking with me; after that, I was opened to a whole world of deep faith from the Catholic church which I could not get enough of. Since then, I seem to have met countless Catholics who are some of the kindest people I’ve met.

To be fair, Alix1912, you cannot group all Catholics as one. The percentages of “rude, intolerant and generally not courteous” people are probably the same in both Catholicism and Lutheranism, along with all of the other denominations. Simply because “most protestants I know” do not bash Catholics does not mean that Catholics hold the majority of the bashers - it only means that you have a good choice of friends, for which I applaud you. I do not have a single Catholic friend now who constantly bashes Protestantism, but nearly every single Protestant I am in contact with now does. This, again, only shows that I have a good choice of Catholic friends - and happen to know a lot of ex-Catholic Protestants.

In summary, threads like this are a disgrace to Catholicism, but that doesn’t mean that Catholics are the only ones who do things like this. Being misinformed in regards to other denominations is a fault of both Catholics and Protestants. If you’ve got your facts straight and want to have a civilized discussion, that’s fine. If you’d like to bash other people and make yourself feel good about your choices, I think they have room over at the Hypocritical and False Followers of Christ forums.

There is lots of judgement and inference in your answer. I understand why you are Catholic. The question was why you could not be Protestant.

 

[CopticChristian]

Now I do believe that Jesus founded His church on Peter and that God called me into the Catholic church. And Protestants can present good reasons for being members of the churches they are in. I also beleive that Protestants are good people and Christians too. I have a feeling that many of us will be surprised when we get to Heaven and see all those people from the wrong religion there.

This is a good reason to be Catholic. No one has returned to tell us if you are correct about your supposition. The reason for not being Protestant is the post.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I can’t be a protestant because I’m convinced of the historical, logical, and theological truths of the Catholic Church. There were no protestants before the 1500’s, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, etc etc etc.

 

[Neildown]

I can’t sing!

That would be one of my reasons.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Thank you. I addressed the issue of Mormonism as you discussed it. I have no argument. I cannot be Protestant.

Yes, but I would caution you on how you present Roman Catholicism to Protestants. Classifying us as apostates won’t help present Catholicism as Christ’s church.

It turns me off, personally. And I very much like the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

…because the Holy Eucharist in the Mass and the Divine Liturgy of the Catholic Church…is the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…how could I ever walk away from Him?

Deo Gratias!

 

[Alix1912]

In summary, threads like this are a disgrace to Catholicism, but that doesn’t mean that Catholics are the only ones who do things like this. Being misinformed in regards to other denominations is a fault of both Catholics and Protestants. If you’ve got your facts straight and want to have a civilized discussion, that’s fine. If you’d like to bash other people and make yourself feel good about your choices, I think they have room over at the Hypocritical and False Followers of Christ forums.

I agree with you about bashing being something that occurs on both sides. Most Catholics I know through my husband’s parrish are very nice. I have to admit that these forums seem to have a higher than usually amount of Catholics with an unpleasant manner of expressing their beliefs and defending their choices. Perhaps it is the freedom people feel being able to post things in a nameless format.

Now I do believe that Jesus founded His church on Peter and that God called me into the Catholic church. And Protestants can present good reasons for being members of the churches they are in. I also beleive that Protestants are good people and Christians too. I have a feeling that many of us will be surprised when we get to Heaven and see all those people from the wrong religion there.

I agree and I hope and pray that I get to heaven, mainly because who doesn’t want to be in God’s presence, and two I’m really interested to see who is there.

 

[xzereus]

There is lots of judgement and inference in your answer. I understand why you are Catholic. The question was why you could not be Protestant.

I suppose I understand why this post was created, and I’ll partially retract my previous post, specifically the sentence that claims it is a disgrace to Catholicism. I’ll admit I was overly judgmental in thinking that you are simply wanting to bash other denominations.

I still think, though, that this post may cause more trouble than it’s worth, even with its pure intentions.

 

[Alix1912]

This is a thoughtful post inferring many things, stating many things. This is Catholic Answers and my post is in Non-Catholic. Catholics are not Protestants. Many Catholics have views about why they cannot be Protestant. ** I would imagine that you cannot answer the inquiry as to why you can’t be Protestant**.

There is lots of judgement and inference in your answer. I understand why you are Catholic. The question was why you could not be Protestant.

This is a good reason to be Catholic. No one has returned to tell us if you are correct about your supposition. The reason for not being Protestant is the post.

Seriously you talk in circles, and have posted essentially the same thread MULTIPLE times. Discussion and Debate on a topic is not simply restating your question many times over, it is actually listening to people and answering the questions they have in return. You refuse to answer why you feel the need to start multiple threads bashing protestants, and what you hope to gain by the excercise. You don’t want anyone to discuss protestantism and it’s reasons with you, you just seem to want to compile a list of bad generalizations (accurate or not) about protestantism. One might assume that you are unsure whether you made the right choice about being Catholic, If this is the case you should try and discern reasons to be Catholic not reasons not to be something else. That is boiling your decision down to the religion you perceive to have the least amount of negative aspects.

With regards to the bolded statement above…Seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY…Obviously, I don’t have a list of uninformed reasons for not being protestant as I am LUTHERAN.

Apparently you are not actually interested in discourse, but rather standing in an echo chamber with you own ideas being repeated over and over.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Yes, the come from Scripture. The differences come from finding different meaning in the same words, not fully considering context or other verses, and quite often from holding up one aspect of the Faith as being the most essential thing. You aren’t going to convince a Protestant that his beliefs dont come from Scripture because they do. It is how Scripture is used and interpreted that is the issue.

Think about how many different interpretations their are of the meaning of the amendments of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. There are lots of different theories that claim to fully explain those very few words.

Different meanings from the same words? How many meanings did the apostles have when they wrote the gospels? This is precisely what I’m talking about, if the apostles wrote the gospel with a specific meaning in mind, then the other meanings cannot come from scripture. This really undermines the idea of sola scriptura for me. I believe that Jesus and his apostles started a full, entire faith, not a template with a set of basic beliefs, the rest of it being “non-essentials.” For the apostles to say “here is a basic written testament of your faith, which describes different aspects incompletely but you can figure those out for yourselves” does not come across as a very good recipe for an infallible religion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, but I would caution you on how you present Roman Catholicism to Protestants. Classifying us as apostates won’t help present Catholicism as Christ’s church.

It turns me off, personally. And I very much like the Roman Catholic Church.

Hillaire Belloc calls Protestanism a Heresy. The Council of Trent declared anathema all the Catholic priests and one Catholic Lawyer promoting alternate doctrines. Protestanism in my opinion is a form of thought with certain parameters. That thought originated in Europe which is mostly white. Many Catholic writers calll Protestanism a new religion.

I say that Protestanism if based on an innerrant/infllible book. Protestants admit that there is no infallible authority. They provide teaching and doctrine that is fallible.

Protestants are certain about their beliefs. In consideration that Protestants admit no teaching is infallible then all beliefs are in essence uncertainly certain.

Protestanism as I said is a form of thought. If I want to describe it I can say, it has been declared to be a heresy in the past, those that promoted it were declared anathema, and it is a form of thought that emanates from white europeans and is in essence a new religion, teaching fallible doctrines, based on an infallible source providing uncertain certainty. We acknowledge that all today that were not present in the past are innocent and acknowedgle that all Baptized in the trinitarian formula are truly Christians. We anticipate that in time with study, prayer and the grace of God the separated will unite. Where do you see error and where should I show caution.

A table is a piece of furniture with 4 legs, may or may not be painted, usually has a round, could be square top and is made by hand or machine.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Hillaire Belloc calls Protestanism a Heresy. The Council of Trent declared anathema all the Catholic priests and one Catholic Lawyer promoting alternate doctrines. Protestanism in my opinion is a form of thought with certain parameters. That thought originated in Europe which is mostly white. Many Catholic writers calll Protestanism a new religion.

I say that Protestanism if based on an innerrant/infllible book. Protestants admit that there is no infallible authority. They provide teaching and doctrine that is fallible.

Protestants are certain about their beliefs. In consideration that Protestants admit no teaching is infallible then all beliefs are in essence uncertainly certain.

Protestanism as I said is a form of thought. If I want to describe it I can say, it has been declared to be a heresy in the past, those that promoted it were declared anathema, and it is a form of thought that emanates from white europeans and is in essence a new religion, teaching fallible doctrines, based on an infallible source providing uncertain certainty. We acknowledge that all today that were not present in the past are innocent and acknowedgle that all Baptized in the trinitarian formula are truly Christians. We anticipate that in time with study, prayer and the grace of God the separated will unite. Where do you see error and where should I show caution.

A table is a piece of furniture with 4 legs, may or may not be painted, usually has a round, could be square top and is made by hand or machine.

What have you got against white Europeans?

 

[exnihilo]

Different meanings from the same words? How many meanings did the apostles have when they wrote the gospels? This is precisely what I’m talking about, if the apostles wrote the gospel with a specific meaning in mind, then the other meanings cannot come from scripture. This really undermines the idea of sola scriptura for me. I believe that Jesus and his apostles started a full, entire faith, not a template with a set of basic beliefs, the rest of it being “non-essentials.”

People get different meaning from the same words all the time. I think the Apostles had a specific meaning but words are never adequate to convey complete meaning. As an example how could words ever truly convey beauty? Something can be described as beautiful but you have to first have experienced beauty in order to appreciate the words.

The different meanings come from the same words of Scripture. I dont consider that to mean that the Scripture has multiple meanings, although sometimes it might as in a figurative and literal meaning. I just consider it to mean that words must be further explained. The Scripture is not written like a legal contract where the smallest detail is spelled out. Think of the difference in the Athanasian Creed and the Nicean. The Athanasian is very explicit and hard to misunderstand. Much of Scripture is not nearly this specific and detailed.

And I for one dont believe in Sola Scriptura as envisioned by many people where it means that anyone can read the Bible and they’ll be guaranteed to properly understand. I think people need to be instructed as to meaning.

 

[CopticChristian]

What have you got against white Europeans?

I do not understand how you can get the point to ask me what I have against white europeans. Knox, Calvin, Zwingli, Luther etc were white europeans. I didn’t not cause them to create the new religion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Seriously you talk in circles, and have posted essentially the same thread MULTIPLE times. Discussion and Debate on a topic is not simply restating your question many times over, it is actually listening to people and answering the questions they have in return. With regards to the bolded statement above…Seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY…Obviously, I don’t have a list of uninformed reasons for not being protestant as I am LUTHERAN.

Apparently you are not actually interested in discourse, but rather standing in an echo chamber with you own ideas being repeated over and over.

Where do I talk in circles? You may consider saying instead, when I see this it causes me to believe you are talking in circles on this issue, can you clarify this for me? I can respond to that. Instead you attack.

Discussion and debating as defined by you precludes what anyone else wants to do. This suggest that you need to expand your definition of dialogue. I asked a question.

I don’t want anyone to discuss Protestanism with me is correct and I asked a question as to why others can’t be Protestant. I have been a Christian for 64 years. Many here are new, old, young, know more, understand less, understand as much and more etc, there is no guaging the level of experience and understanding. It took me a long time to formulate my opinions. This opinion is based on knowledge, study, experience and asking questions.

You entered this post knowing that I asked “why you can’t be Protestant”. I suppose I could have said tell me why you can’t be Lutheran, Calvinist, etc…in my opinion the entire process emanates from the same form of thought. If you read over the following posts in this thread from the following:

SwissGuy
Chris Redfield47
Eegardner
WoundedIcon
Bearontherun
IrishGal49
SecretGarden
Mijoy2
Wondrousgnat
Nicea 325
CompSciGuy
ESMDHokie77
Nieldown
FromTheAshes777

I have learned why they cannot be Protestant. Since I encounter many Protestants who like to evanglize the cult of the Catholic it gives me ideas as to what I might know and expand it with what others know. I pray that they and others learn from this so that this notion of convert and revert is looked at and those that are coming to the Faith and those that are in the Faith understand what the differences are and why people change. I believe that I have accomplished that.

You may be interested in looking at General Semantics and understand if you choose to one basic concept “the map is not the territory”. The Protestant map and the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Map are quite different. If you learned nothing from my post then know that Aquinas and Augustine looked at Plato and Aristotle and found use for their ideas in Christianity.

I have looked at General Semantics and find use for it in Chrisitianity. Alfred Korzybski states that unsanity is caused by faulty maps and communication about those maps. I see on none of these posts that anyone answered that they could not become Protestant was as the result of a debate, trading scripture verses, and in fact satisfies what I believe to be my premise in that “the map” was essential to understanding of what the reality of the Church is and can be. In that regard you have a different map than mine that no amount of debate will satisfy. This post, and I hope more Catholics post how their maps were changed. I believe that by changing the map, as we think so we believe.

generalsemantics.org/

In addition I find that the truths of communication as provided through the study of NLP and Neurosemantics aid in understanding. People communicate with deletions, distortions and generalizations. If you look at some basic information on NLP you will discover this and more. I read posts and listen to speech and look for generalizations, deletions and distortion.

I discovered in reading Church documents, the Catechism, Encyclicals and other Catholic writings that the Church is in tune with General Semantics. There is a consistency of thought that can be traced in time backwards and forwards. It truly is amazing. Veritatis Splendor was the document that started this entire journey.

NLP teaches that you can if willing change your beliefs. Consent is necessary. No amount of trading of scripture, debate or argument is going to cause you to change your belief. You can change your map, that will change your belief, and with consent and help you can believe in a way that you do not know. Fair enough.

Do you really want to debate me?

 

[SnakeMauler]

• Because of the doctrine of Total Depravity.
• Because it creates a seemingly gnostic dichotomy between spirit and matter.
• Because of the lack of a sacramental worldview where matter can bear spirit.
• Because it doesn’t carry out the Incarnation to its fullest extent by believing that we can become ontologically righteous.
• Because its subculture skews toward the mediocre in art and thought, using such things as containers for messages instead of world-changing civilizing forces.
• Because it lack a sense of the sacred.
• Because it lacks mysticism.
• Because grace is believed to be a created good.
• Because in some forms it treats the statement “The Book of Revelation must be interpreted according to its genre” as blasphemy.
• Because of fantastical Premillenialism.
• Because of moralism.
• Because of sentimentality.
• Because it has a diversity-destroying conformist subculture.
• Because it lacks a cohering authority to maintain the Truth.
• Because it’s historically ignorant and inconsistent.
• Because it lies.
• Because it easily becomes liberal.
• Because it disobeys 1 Corinthians.
• Because it denies Sainthood and intercession.
• Because it either denies the miraculous
• Because it confuses, decays, and destroys itself.
• Because of denominations.
• Because it lacks the richness of a real religion and is more akin to a philosophy with God tacked on.
• Because the Bible wasn’t available to be used the way their doctrines demand until the printing press was invented, making God look like an idiot.
• Because Calvinism is sick.
• Because of celebrity pseudopope scholars like the polemical and arrogant John MacArthur.
• Because of a lack of critical thinking.
• Because prayer devolves into ask an Uncle God for favors then thanking Him. (No mysticism, contemplation, etc.)
• Because it lacks oral tradition.
• Because its Biblical canon is truncated.
• Because on must have knowledge of things outside their Bible to interpret it correctly, including the Deuterocanon in our Bibles.
• Because of antinomianism.
• Because of anti-traditionalism.
• Because of annoying CCM and Worship & Praise music making everything fluffy, man-centered, and comfortable.
• Because of the false sense of security that comes from Sola Fide and Sola Gratia.
• Because it decries relativism while at the same time being relativistic at its core.
• Because of individualism and the “invisible church”.
• Because the church building is just a building and not a holy place.
• Because it lacks the grace of all the sacraments.
• Because of a lack of the Catholic “both/and” thinking. Verse vs verse, etc.

Spot on bro.

Because the Bible wasn’t available to be used the way their doctrines demand until the printing press was invented, making God look like an idiot.

I’m really glad you pointed out that bit because it proves a lot and to deny that is to deny history and make no sense.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Hillaire Belloc calls Protestanism a Heresy. The Council of Trent declared anathema all the Catholic priests and one Catholic Lawyer promoting alternate doctrines. Protestanism in my opinion is a form of thought with certain parameters. That thought originated in Europe which is mostly white. Many Catholic writers calll Protestanism a new religion.

What is wrong about being White and European? That’s one of the things I like about Christianity. I hate to break it to you, but despite its Middle Eastern origins, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn’t identify Catholicism as something largely White and European. Europeans have dominated its hierarchy and its theological development right from the very beginning of the faith. What’s the problem, here? Why do you have animosity towards Whites?

I’m proud of being a White European. I wouldn’t give that up for the world. This is what God willed me to be. And I embrace it with my whole being.

I say that Protestanism if based on an innerrant/infllible book. Protestants admit that there is no infallible authority. They provide teaching and doctrine that is fallible.

Protestants are certain about their beliefs. In consideration that Protestants admit no teaching is infallible then all beliefs are in essence uncertainly certain.

Protestants do believe in an infallible authority. They believe the Bible is the infallible authority. Lutherans I’d say are reluctant to go beyond what they believe is specifically mentioned in the Bible for fear of corruption.

Protestanism as I said is a form of thought. If I want to describe it I can say, it has been declared to be a heresy in the past, those that promoted it were declared anathema, and it is a form of thought that emanates from white europeans and is in essence a new religion, teaching fallible doctrines, based on an infallible source providing uncertain certainty. We acknowledge that all today that were not present in the past are innocent and acknowedgle that all Baptized in the trinitarian formula are truly Christians. We anticipate that in time with study, prayer and the grace of God the separated will unite. Where do you see error and where should I show caution.

Roman Catholicism is primarily White European. Deal with it. Embrace it. It’s beautiful. Can we now cut out the race question?

But you haven’t understood what I’ve been telling you, at any rate.

How do you expect to lead an Evangelical, for instance, to Catholicism if you compare him with a Mormon? Do you expect him to find Catholicism with a positive light? It’s counter-productive to act that way, simply put. You won’t bash their heads into the Catholic Church. You’ll probably just resolve them to grab on even tighter to their beliefs.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

What is wrong about being White and European? That’s one of the things I like about Christianity. I hate to break it to you, but despite its Middle Eastern origins, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn’t identify Catholicism as something largely White and European. Europeans have dominated its hierarchy and its theological development right from the very beginning of the faith. What’s the problem, here? Why do you have animosity towards Whites?

I’m proud of being a White European. I wouldn’t give that up for the world. This is what God willed me to be. And I embrace it with my whole being.

Protestants do believe in an infallible authority. They believe the Bible is the infallible authority. Lutherans I’d say are reluctant to go beyond what they believe is specifically mentioned in the Bible for fear of corruption.

Roman Catholicism is primarily White European. Deal with it. Embrace it. It’s beautiful. Can we now cut out the race question?

But you haven’t understood what I’ve been telling you, at any rate.

How do you expect to lead an Evangelical, for instance, to Catholicism if you compare him with a Mormon? Do you expect him to find Catholicism with a positive light? It’s counter-productive to act that way, simply put. You won’t bash their heads into the Catholic Church. You’ll probably just resolve them to grab on even tighter to their beliefs.

I agree 98% (Go europe! ). But I disagree with the Lutheran part - you have it mixed up. Lutherans are more in fear of going away from their Lutheran traditions and the Book of Concord . If it’s not prohibited in the Bible or the book of Concord, Lutherans generally don’t have a problem with you doing something.