Why Would A Priest Say Don't Convert To The Church And Stay Protestant

[Steve40]

These three points you raise are fine; however, they are also separate issues.

Yes, there is no salvation outside of the Chuch. The Church also believes that in an imperfect way, all our separated brethren are part of the same one Church. I’m sure you realize this.

No, I don’t believe we can have the same degree of certainty that those not formally in the Catholic Church will be saved.

However, what we can have confidence in is that the Lord is love, He is merciful, and He is just. These qualities are impossible to fully define, but I have no problem accepting the mystery of those truths.

I guess we will find out my sibling in Christ.

Have a good weekend.

JB

The savific ability of the Sacrements is not separate from the teaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation. In fact it is the Sacrements that are the basis of this teaching. We have abused the teaching Out Side The Church There is No Salvation to the point that there is little to no belief in the Doctrine on Original Sin as well as the belief in the saving Grace of the waters of Baptism.

We are not the judge of God’s justice. To suggest that God would be unjust if He were to throw someone into hell because of Original Sin and only because of Original Sin is wrong. God Is justified by condeming all humanity for the sin of our first parents. I do not totally understand this but this same element of being human also allows us all to be save through Christ Jesus. God sets the criteria for being saved through Christ. He has given that authority to the Son Who has made it quite clear through the institution of the Sacrements of Initiation in the Sacred Scriptures.

Your definition of the Church is incorrect. The Church is the souls in Purgatory, the Saints in Heaven and the faithful on Earth who profess the same faith, have the same Sacrifice and Sacrements and are united under the same visible head, the Pope.

However, I would agree that God is not bound by the Sacrements or anything for that mater and can do anything He wills. But, there is no historic evidence that anyone outside the Church or not an old testiment Saints is within heaven. It is a big exception that we have no knowledge of and is not the rule.

 

[DJgang]

Since when do Priest have the authority to tell people who can and can’t come in the church? Or sorry, give advice I guess…but really that is what it boils down to, isn’t it?

Man, that makes me kinda ill to hear this… makes you wonder how much the Priest really honors his Bride…ya know?

Even if the person didn’t believe in this or believe in that…the person should have been invited to attend RCIA and leave the choice up to the individual…

 

[Contarini]

\ To suggest that God would be unjust if He were to throw someone into hell because of Original Sin and only because of Original Sin is wrong.

If you mean “eternal torment” by hell, then you are saying that Aquinas is wrong. Aquinas says that original sin alone keeps us from the vision of God, but only actual sin results in eternal suffering (except insofar as the privation of the vision of God is suffering, but Aquinas seems to downplay this). Those who have original sin and no actual sin are in a place of natural happiness (limbo). They do not suffer.

Whether or not this is true of unbaptized infants, I can accept this in principle as just. (I prefer “good” to “just” since certainly God owes us nothing.) But I cannot believe that a good God would punish people simply for original sin. Yes, Augustine thought this, but I’m more accustomed to hearing this argument from Calvinists than from Catholics, and I find it utterly unconvincing. You wind up defining “God” primarily in terms of power rather than goodness, which is a radically distorted understanding of God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In answer to the OP, it is true that the current Pope has explicitly rejected an “ecumenism of return.” I do not think that he intends by this to rule out conversion–obviously Vatican II said that someone who believes the Catholic Church to be the true Church must convert if they want to be saved. However, the primary approach today is clearly one of working toward corporate reunion from where we are rather than encouraging individual conversions. I think this is right in principle but utterly impractical (not necessarily a bad thing in my book), because as Protestants such as myself become closer to Catholicism in our theology and get to the point where we might possibly influence Protestant churches toward corporate reunion, we are likely to reach the point at which we are genuinely convinced that we should convert. So Protestant communities as a whole are unlikely to get to the point of reunion, since the more Catholic-minded folks keep getting siphoned off by individual conversion.

That being the case, it’s understandable that some priests might want to keep Protestants from converting, or at least encourage them to stay in their churches as long as possible. Only that way is there any chance that the explicit goal of the Holy Father (corporate reunion in which the various traditions retain their identities insofar as this is compatible with orthodoxy) will ever be achieved. It’s a tricky issue, it seems to me, and perhaps people on this forum should not be judging priests who are acting in particular circumstances unknown to us.

At the same time, if priests are genuinely preventing Protestants from following their conscience, this is a bad thing. The only Catholic priest who has ever actively discouraged me from converting did so because he believed me to be motivated by curiositas (a kind of intellectual restlessness) rather than genuine hunger for the truth. This was a harsh judgment, but I can look back now and see that he was at least partially right. (This wasn’t his only motivation–I think it’s fair to say that he had a certain fear and suspicion of converts. But it was the reason he gave me.) The more liberal priests in the area welcomed my interest in Catholicism, although they presented Catholicism in a way that helped keep me away!

An Orthodox priest also discouraged me from pursuing conversion to Orthodoxy, and again, I think this was a sound pastoral judgment on his part (he began speaking this way after realizing that my wife was committed to Protestantism and that I was not willing to stop going to church with her).

Edwin

 

[Steve40]

If you mean “eternal torment” by hell, then you are saying that Aquinas is wrong. Aquinas says that original sin alone keeps us from the vision of God, but only actual sin results in eternal suffering (except insofar as the privation of the vision of God is suffering, but Aquinas seems to downplay this). Those who have original sin and no actual sin are in a place of natural happiness (limbo). They do not suffer.

Whether or not this is true of unbaptized infants, I can accept this in principle as just. (I prefer “good” to “just” since certainly God owes us nothing.) But I cannot believe that a good God would punish people simply for original sin. Yes, Augustine thought this, but I’m more accustomed to hearing this argument from Calvinists than from Catholics, and I find it utterly unconvincing. You wind up defining “God” primarily in terms of power rather than goodness, which is a radically distorted understanding of God.

Edwin

My main point is that it isn’t for us to say. I think it is OK to say we do not understand every thing God does but we know and believe He Is Love, He Is Just and He Is Mercy. If He does things that seems unjust or unloving it is our understanding that is lacking and not a distortion of Who God Is. It is wrong to think that God wouldn’t do this or that because He Is a Loving God. His Ways are not our ways and by definition He Is always right and just.

We are connected to each other. Thank God because if we weren’t connected to Christ we would be dead. That same connection is true for original sin. Sin entered through one man and we are saved by One Man.

I’m not sure of the idea of happiness without God. That doesn’t make sense or seem possible to me.

 

[Steve40]

In answer to the OP, it is true that the current Pope has explicitly rejected an “ecumenism of return.” I do not think that he intends by this to rule out conversion–obviously Vatican II said that someone who believes the Catholic Church to be the true Church must convert if they want to be saved. However, the primary approach today is clearly one of working toward corporate reunion from where we are rather than encouraging individual conversions. I think this is right in principle but utterly impractical (not necessarily a bad thing in my book), because as Protestants such as myself become closer to Catholicism in our theology and get to the point where we might possibly influence Protestant churches toward corporate reunion, we are likely to reach the point at which we are genuinely convinced that we should convert. So Protestant communities as a whole are unlikely to get to the point of reunion, since the more Catholic-minded folks keep getting siphoned off by individual conversion.

That being the case, it’s understandable that some priests might want to keep Protestants from converting, or at least encourage them to stay in their churches as long as possible. Only that way is there any chance that the explicit goal of the Holy Father (corporate reunion in which the various traditions retain their identities insofar as this is compatible with orthodoxy) will ever be achieved. It’s a tricky issue, it seems to me, and perhaps people on this forum should not be judging priests who are acting in particular circumstances unknown to us.

At the same time, if priests are genuinely preventing Protestants from following their conscience, this is a bad thing. The only Catholic priest who has ever actively discouraged me from converting did so because he believed me to be motivated by curiositas (a kind of intellectual restlessness) rather than genuine hunger for the truth. This was a harsh judgment, but I can look back now and see that he was at least partially right. (This wasn’t his only motivation–I think it’s fair to say that he had a certain fear and suspicion of converts. But it was the reason he gave me.) The more liberal priests in the area welcomed my interest in Catholicism, although they presented Catholicism in a way that helped keep me away!

An Orthodox priest also discouraged me from pursuing conversion to Orthodoxy, and again, I think this was a sound pastoral judgment on his part (he began speaking this way after realizing that my wife was committed to Protestantism and that I was not willing to stop going to church with her).

Edwin

Thanks, I appriciate your sharing. Some friends and I buy a half hour of radio air time on a for profit Protestant Christian radio station and attempt to get people to call in and discuss Catholic Apologetics issues. The radio station has been good to us and even though they may disagree with us they don’t mind us going on the air.

I’m always interested in ways to present the material and I’m interested in what is making you look at the Catholic Church. Most of our foucus has been on Scripture, Church History and the Church Fathers.

Steve

 

[cheddarsox]

These three points you raise are fine; however, they are also separate issues.

Yes, there is no salvation outside of the Chuch. The Church also believes that in an imperfect way, all our separated brethren are part of the same one Church. I’m sure you realize this.

No, I don’t believe we can have the same degree of certainty that those not formally in the Catholic Church will be saved.

However, what we can have confidence in is that the Lord is love, He is merciful, and He is just. These qualities are impossible to fully define, but I have no problem accepting the mystery of those truths.

I guess we will find out my sibling in Christ.

Have a good weekend.

JB

Your “in” box is full. Nothing is getting through.

 

[christcnection1]

Your definition of the Church is incorrect. .

That’s a bold statement. Nothing you said in this piece contradicts what I believe (and what the Church believes.)

It could be you’re misinterpreting or misunderstanding me. In that case, this is only a clarification.

Blessings,
JB

 

[Steve40]

That’s a bold statement. Nothing you said in this piece contradicts what I believe (and what the Church believes.)

It could be you’re misinterpreting or misunderstanding me. In that case, this is only a clarification.

Blessings,
JB

I should have been more specific as to what I was reffering to. I was reffering to your statement

"The Church also believes that in an imperfect way, all our separated brethren are part of the same one Church. I’m sure you realize this. "

The definition of the One True Church is the souls in Purgatory, the saints in heaven, and the faithful on earth united in the same faith, the same sacrifice, and the same Sacraments, under the authority of the Soverigh Pontiff and the biishops in comunion with him.

This doesn’t include separated bretheren. This has been our definition of Church for centuries. I don’t think this falls in to an area of binding and loosening authority that the Magisterium can change.

 

[christcnection1]

This doesn’t include separated bretheren. This has been our definition of Church for centuries. I don’t think this falls in to an area of binding and loosening authority that the Magisterium can change.

838

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

This is the definition I’m working under. Indeed, the communion is quite profound, it would not take much for them to attain the fullness of the truth as we subscribe to.

Do you agree with this passage of the Catechism?

If this somehow contradicts what the Church has always believed, then there is little reason to accept the Catechism and Church’s teaching of today.

JB

 

[Keikiolu]

I was talking to someone yesterday and it was the second time that I heard someone say that when they asked about becoming Catholic the priest told them to stay where they were and not to convert.

I think we have lost the truth in the Church teaching “Outside The Church There is No Salvation” CCC 846. I use to struggle with this teaching myself, thinking why would God send someone to hell just because they are not Catholic? But what I realized is that we all deserve to go to hell and that God has every right to throw all of us down there. The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church is a testiment to God’s great Mercy not harshness.

May God have mercy on the priest who says don’t convert to the Catholic faith and upon anyone who waters down the Church teaching that there is no savaltion outside the Catholic Church (CCC 846).

So, in answer to the question:
[sign]“Why Would A Priest Say Don’t Convert To The Church And Stay Protestant”[/sign]

…I would answer, because the priest is stupid, uncharitable, and possibly evil (at least in intent), and in need of some serious re-catechism, or re-catechesis, whichever is the correct form.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I was talking to someone yesterday and it was the second time that I heard someone say that when they asked about becoming Catholic the priest told them to stay where they were and not to convert.

I think we have lost the truth in the Church teaching “Outside The Church There is No Salvation” CCC 846. I use to struggle with this teaching myself, thinking why would God send someone to hell just because they are not Catholic? But what I realized is that we all deserve to go to hell and that God has every right to throw all of us down there. The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church is a testiment to God’s great Mercy not harshness.

May God have mercy on the priest who says don’t convert to the Catholic faith and upon anyone who waters down the Church teaching that there is no savaltion outside the Catholic Church (CCC 846).

For any number of good reasons - & as we do not know the details of what was said, we are not in a position to judge the priest. The assumption has always to be that the reasons were good. This is basic Catholic moral teaching.​

Sometimes people want to make a major step like this for bad reasons - such as a disappontment in their life as non-Catholic Christians. Or because “the grass is greener on the other side”. Or because they imagine that the CC has none of the faults in other Churches. To make such a change is a major step, so it cannot be undertaken lightly - & it may not be God’s Will for this or that individual to take it: what is best in the abstract, is not always best for the individual.

 

[Keikiolu]

For any number of good reasons - & as we do not know the details of what was said, we are not in a position to judge the priest. The assumption has always to be that the reasons were good. This is basic Catholic moral teaching.​

True,… but that’s not the question that the poster wanted answered.

It’s not “Why would THAT priest…”, but rather, “Why would A priest…”

Sometimes people want to make a major step like this for bad reasons - such as a disappontment in their life as non-Catholic Christians. Or because “the grass is greener on the other side”. Or because they imagine that the CC has none of the faults in other Churches. To make such a change is a major step, so it cannot be undertaken lightly - & it may not be God’s Will for this or that individual to take it: what is best in the abstract, is not always best for the individual.

Rubish…! It’s ALWAYS best for any human being to show interest in and study t become Catholic.

To turn someone AWAY from the truth is NEVER a good idea.

To FORCE someone to turn toward the truth is also never a good idea,… but that’s not the discussion we’re discussing.

Since the “enquirer” is seeking the truth, and the person in a “really good” position to help them in their search TURNS THEM AWAY, there is NO (non-sinful) excuse for doing that.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Atemi]

I was talking to someone yesterday and it was the second time that I heard someone say that when they asked about becoming Catholic the priest told them to stay where they were and not to convert.

I think we have lost the truth in the Church teaching “Outside The Church There is No Salvation” CCC 846. I use to struggle with this teaching myself, thinking why would God send someone to hell just because they are not Catholic? But what I realized is that we all deserve to go to hell and that God has every right to throw all of us down there. The teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church is a testiment to God’s great Mercy not harshness.

May God have mercy on the priest who says don’t convert to the Catholic faith and upon anyone who waters down the Church teaching that there is no savaltion outside the Catholic Church (CCC 846).

Why do you assume all non-Catholic Christians are outside of the Body of Christ where there is no salvation for them?

It seems this priest knows better.

…

 

[Eliza10]

I remember Scott Hahn saying, in his book Rome Sweet Home, that he was also told this by a Priest in Grove Ciy, Pa., when he was thinking of converting.

When I was thinking of converting, a priest asked me, after hearing how hostile my husband was towards Catholicism, to think about what kind a marraige I would have if I converted, and, would I be able to live with that? I felt I had to give that problem to the Lord. I had asked the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth, and He lead me to the Catholic Church, and I felt strongly that to now say “No, thank you, being Catholic is too much trouble” to the Holy Spirit would be blaspheming Him -and that was a choice I did not have to make.

Therefore, I felt my only choice was to move forward and to trust God with such key issues as this. So I did. The marraige did fall apart, two years later, but not it was not blamed on conversion. In fact, my conversion has been able to remain unblamed for the marriage breakup, in spite of those in our old circle of Independant Baptists (many of whom are ex-Catholics) who would wish otherwise. This is due to special grace. And for that I am grateful.

…http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...celli_034.jpg/300px-Sandro_Botticelli_034.jpg

 

[fix]

T! It’s ALWAYS best for any human being to show interest in and study t become Catholic.

I think I agree here. I can see where in individual situations some person may be converting for some “wrong” purpose such as to please a spouse or something.

But, it seems God meets people where they are at, yet never leaves them there. He would always draw them home to His Church which has all the sacraments and means of salvation.

I could see a situation where the priest says you are not ready yet because of this or that, but you should continue to pray and study so that you will come to accept everyone was intended to be in the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

I remember Scott Hahn saying, in his book Rome Sweet Home, that he was also told this by a Priest in Grove Ciy, Pa., when he was thinking of converting.

I think in his case, it would have been too early for him to convert at that time. He was still enthralled by the “bells and smells” and he could easily have gone rad-trad schismatic, if he had converted at that time. Waiting was good for him - he was exposed to the Church as it really is while he was still working on his decision, and he was able to accept it as it is.

I think a period of waiting does no harm, for most people. Also, it’s good for people to be turned down, in some cases - it makes them realize that it’s the Church’s decision to accept us, and not the other way around.

I think that some of us converts are tempted to say, “Look at me!! I am so gracious, to gift you with my presence in your Church. Bow down, and honour me!! Parade me through your streets with banners, drums, clowns, and a brass band - interview me on EWTN and buy my books - for I have learned my Catechism!!”

I got rejected twice; it was good for my soul and taught me humility. (Aren’t I wonderfully humble, now? HEY!! Admire how humble I am!! Yes, YOU there!! )

(Sorry. )

 

[Genesis315]

Why do you assume all non-Catholic Christians are outside of the Body of Christ where there is no salvation for them?

It seems this priest knows better.

…

But this is the classic case of someone who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, but does not enter.

**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

 

[Steve40]

838

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

This is the definition I’m working under. Indeed, the communion is quite profound, it would not take much for them to attain the fullness of the truth as we subscribe to.

Do you agree with this passage of the Catechism?

If this somehow contradicts what the Church has always believed, then there is little reason to accept the Catechism and Church’s teaching of today.

JB

Did the definition of what the Church is change in recent years? The modern definition that you quote is also inconsistent with St. Pope Pius X’s syllabus of errors.

So, I guess I need to decide if I’m going to go with the definition of the Church before the 20th century or the definition of Church in the late 20th century. I’m not convinced that going with the modern definition of the Church is correct. I’ve been teaching the kids from the Baltimore Catechism and I think we’ll stick with that.

I find it hard to believe that the definition of what the Church is can be changed either based upon the binding and loosening authority or by the development of doctrine, but I must admit I don’t have a good understanding of the development of doctrine. This would be a good subject for a new thread. Thanks I think I’ll start one.

Steve

 

[Genesis315]

Did the definition of what the Church is change in recent years? The modern definition that you quote is also inconsistent with St. Pope Pius X’s syllabus of errors.

So, I guess I need to decide if I’m going to go with the definition of the Church before the 20th century or the definition of Church in the late 20th century. I’m not convinced that going with the modern definition of the Church is correct. I’ve been teaching the kids from the Baltimore Catechism and I think we’ll stick with that.

I find it hard to believe that the definition of what the Church is can be changed either based upon the binding and loosening authority or by the development of doctrine, but I must admit I don’t have a good understanding of the development of doctrine. This would be a good subject for a new thread. Thanks I think I’ll start one.

Steve

It doesn’t contradict at all. The Council of Florence defined that Baptism is teh door by which we enter the Church and that even heretics have valid baptisms. The Council fo Trent also anathemitizes those who say heretics do not have valid baptisms.

The Baltimore Catechism says the same thing. There’s that picture of the Church as Noah’s ark and there are those who are connected to the ark by ropes. Remember that picture?

That imperfect communion is union with the Church, but not the full visible unity. This was often called union with the soul of the Church:

Here is what the Catechism of St. Pius X says:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

And here is a Catechism from the reign of Bl. Pius IX whixh was published after the Syllabus:

Q. Do Catholics charge all that are apparently out of their communion with the crimes of heresy and schism, and consequently exclude them from salvation

A. No; all baptized children who die before they sin mortally, and before they embrace and believe error, are members of the true Church. Again, all those sincere people belong to the soul of the Church, who, being baptized, and believing the great fundamental truths of Christianity, and who are prevented from believing it in all its details, not by carelessness, nor temporal interest, nor human respect, nor the spirit of obstinacy, nor by malice, but simply because they never doubted, and never had sufficient means of knowing the truth, which they would embrace at once, and with gladness, could they only discover it,*—*all these, we say, belong to the soul of the Church, and will be saved, if they lead good lives and do not violate God’s law.