Young Protestant seeking the truth about Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDNaman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve_b said:
Philip Schaff was an Anglican scholar.
Click to expand...
No, he wasn’t. He was German Reformed. He also had nothing to do with this. He was the American editor of the Nicene and Post-Nicene part of the series, but his name gets stuck on the whole thing. The American editor responsible for the “elucidation” you’re complaining about was A. Cleveland Coxe, who was in fact an Episcopal bishop, so you’re right thus far. But he wasn’t the translator. The original British editors of the material were Roberts and Donaldson, both I think Scottish Presbyterians. However, it would appear that Book 3 was actually translated by one Rev. W. H. Rambaut. Googling him, I found out that he was Irish of Huguenot ancestry (so probably Presbyterian also), and that he has minor fame as an astronomer! Roberts, one of the editors, translated other parts of Against Heresies and may have worked up Rambaut’s work. So when Coxe refers disparagingly to the unaccountable mistake of the “learned translators,” he’s talking about Roberts and Rambaut, it would seem. An Anglican criticizing Presbyterians for being too fair to Catholicism.

This is, in fact, a testimony to the fairness of Roberts and Rambaut. As Presbyterians, one of them descended from French Protestant exiles, they had no reason to be biased in favor of Catholicism. Coxe claims that his alternative translation is supported by a “candid Roman Catholic,” but his note doesn’t clarify who this is, unless possibly the Abbe Guettee to whom he refers a bit later. Guettee was a French Catholic scholar who converted to Orthodoxy.

In short, you have garbled the entire situation quite a bit. It’s not a case of one Protestant scholar somehow trying desperately to find an “alternative” to his own translation (which makes no sense), but an editor arguing that fellow Protestants had been too favorable to Catholicism in their translation. This is actually evidence for, not against, the honesty of the translation.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Well, if you aren’t receiving communion in Anglican churches, what on earth are you waiting for?

Don’t starve yourself of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Yes, I know that our RC brothers and sisters will be quick to say that Anglican Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood, and that’s presumably why you haven’t been receiving it.

For me the shoe is on the other foot–I have been drawn strongly to Catholicism for at least 20 years, and one of the reasons I have trouble “closing the deal” is that I can’t see my way clear to stop receiving communion in Anglican and other Protestant churches.

So that’s my point–if you think Anglican Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood, you need to get yourself to a place where you can receive the Body and Blood. And you need to do it as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
This is an example of relativistic thinking. No real truth, truth is what you think it is. My truth is my truth and your truth is your truth…and the wheels go round and round.
C:
Now it does seem to me that you haven’t given Anglo-Catholicism much of a look. It sounds as if the Anglicanism you are experiencing is low-church Evangelical. And unsurprisingly–from what I hear they are the ones growing these days in the C of E, and Anglo-Catholicism is on the decline.

But frankly, Anglo-Catholicism can be quite a muddle and often has some very dubious history and theology bound up with it. (By which I mean that instead of just saying “we want to make the C of E more Catholic,” they painted themselves into the corner of saying that it really always had been Catholic all along, and thus essentially unchurching many other Anglicans, let alone other Protestants. I am Anglo-Catholic in many respects, but have never really bought the full-blown package, which seemed rather pointless–if I wanted not to be Protestant at all, I would be RC or Orthodox.)

Edwin
Click to expand...
Pope Pius IX wrote an encyclical on different errors in thinking that are at the heart of all errors

I picked 4 errors from that encyclical

Following From http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

*15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851. *

*16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846. *

*17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. *

*18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849. *

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard just these errors alone, used in various conversations.
 
(1) The Cathechism of the Catholic Church should be your best bet, but you probably have this or are already reading it online.

(2) *Catholic and Christian *by Alan Schreck is a really good read.

(3) Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed

(4) One of the central issues of Catholicism vs. Anglicanism is the subject of the Papacy. I would get a book dealing with the Papal claims, such as
  • Upon This Rock by Steve Ray
  • The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue
 
Contarini said:
No, he wasn’t. He was German Reformed. He also had nothing to do with this. He was the American editor of the Nicene and Post-Nicene part of the series, but his name gets stuck on the whole thing. The American editor responsible for the “elucidation” you’re complaining about was A. Cleveland Coxe, who was in fact an Episcopal bishop, so you’re right thus far. But he wasn’t the translator. The original British editors of the material were Roberts and Donaldson, both I think Scottish Presbyterians. However, it would appear that Book 3 was actually translated by one Rev. W. H. Rambaut. Googling him, I found out that he was Irish of Huguenot ancestry (so probably Presbyterian also), and that he has minor fame as an astronomer! Roberts, one of the editors, translated other parts of Against Heresies and may have worked up Rambaut’s work. So when Coxe refers disparagingly to the unaccountable mistake of the “learned translators,” he’s talking about Roberts and Rambaut, it would seem. An Anglican criticizing Presbyterians for being too fair to Catholicism.

This is, in fact, a testimony to the fairness of Roberts and Rambaut. As Presbyterians, one of them descended from French Protestant exiles, they had no reason to be biased in favor of Catholicism. Coxe claims that his alternative translation is supported by a “candid Roman Catholic,” but his note doesn’t clarify who this is, unless possibly the Abbe Guettee to whom he refers a bit later. Guettee was a French Catholic scholar who converted to Orthodoxy.

In short, you have garbled the entire situation quite a bit. It’s not a case of one Protestant scholar somehow trying desperately to find an “alternative” to his own translation (which makes no sense), but an editor arguing that fellow Protestants had been too favorable to Catholicism in their translation. This is actually evidence for, not against, the honesty of the translation.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Re: #117 my comments on the footnote were in this color.

  1. *]the translators even admitted Re: Irenaeus statement, “we have been unable to think of anything better. A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse”

    To which I ask, why is that such an extrodinary confession? And certainly why would it be hard to find a worse one? Worse for whom?

    When Catholics read that from a Catholic bishop, who is one man away from the apostle John, they aren’t surprised at all to read that. I can see where it would be an extraordinary confession for a non Catholic to read, hard to find a worse one for a non Catholic, as the footnote said, but certainly not for a Catholic to read it.

    But as the footnote said, they tried to come up with another better translation for that confession. They really couldn’t do that because the Latin document was already there, and this is a Catholic Church bishop and document.

    The “candid Roman Catholic” as you say who the Protestant translators found to refute the translation that was sooooo damaging to read, was a… wait for the drum roll…a Catholic who disagreed with the Catholic Church position. Gee, what a surprise. :rolleyes:

    THAT’s how bias can be injected into texts.
 
A couple more points for the OP:

Where are you going to university?

As far as reading material, obviously the Church Fathers (if you can find the Fathers of the Church or the Ancient Christian Writers series read them, assuming that you don’t know Latin or Greek yet–if not, the ANF/NPNF series is OK). At about your stage in my education, I read the first volume of the ANF (Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus), Origen On First Principles, and Augustine’s Confessions and City of God. Those are good places to start, though now I’d encourage my younger self to read some more of the later Greeks as well–Athanasius On the Incarnation and Gregory of Nyssa’s Great Catechism, in particular.

Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity is a splendid account of the basic truths of the Faith. (It’s not an “introduction” in the sense of being easy, but it rewards effort.)

The Catechism, papal encyclicals, the documents of Vatican II and other Councils, are of course invaluable.

Louis Bouyer’s The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism is probably the best Catholic critique of Protestantism I know. On Anglicanism specifically, Nichols’ The Panther and the Hind and Tavard’s The Quest for Catholicity are good Catholic accounts.

One of the standard Anglican books on anglicanism is by Stephen Neill, Anglicanism
The Study of Anglicanism, ed. Stephen Sykes, is a multi-authored, magisterial work.
For an Anglo-Catholic perspective, Eric Mascall is hard to beat.

Rowan Williams, former ABC, is a splendid contemporary Anglican theologian.
Ephraim Radner has some good books on ecclesiology from a rather quirky but very Anglican perspective. Radner’s approach is, as far as I’m concerned, the only real alternative to Catholicism.

Edwin
 
Kenny_Kamel said:
Are there any Catholic campus ministries or perhaps a Newman Center at the university you will be attending? Tremendous resources for you to take advantage of 🙂
Click to expand...
I quite agree!!

Making everything into one, long argument, and reducing everything about the faith to simply the intellectual, is only to tell half the story.

The faith is compatible with reason, to be sure, but faith itself is a gift, it is a grace given to us by God, lest we should boast. We can’t give it to ourselves, we can’t will it, and we can’t argue our way into it. Many intellectuals can know the faith backwards and forwards and have no more faith than my cat Diego. Understanding academic theories is not the same thing as knowing God.

But I think that a tremendous help is being around OTHER PEOPLE who are sincere Catholics, especially at such a young age. To be frank, entering most universities to study philosophy, all while having questions about God and religion, is not exactly a path that will lead to a deepening of one’s faith. You’re more likely to discover atheism at university, with all of its intellectual and societal temptations, than you are to become a pious Catholic wondering about things like religious vocations.

To balance this out, finding some other young adults who are smart, well-read, and who actually practice their faith can be a wonderful asset.
 
steve_b said:
This is an example of relativistic thinking. No real truth, truth is what you think it is. My truth is my truth and your truth is your truth…and the wheels go round and round.
Click to expand...
Balderdash. It’s not relativistic at all. It’s just trying to help someone think through his options.

There is no relativism implied in saying “if you think X you should do Y.”

Furthermore, from an Anglican point of view, it would be better to have the OP a happy RC sure he was receiving the Body and Blood than a doubting Anglican who didn’t even receive Communion. That’s not because of relativism. It’s because Anglicans believe that the Eucharist is, objectively, valid and true in the Roman Communion.
Pope Pius IX wrote an encyclical on different errors in thinking that are at the heart of all errors

I picked 4 errors from that encyclical

Following From http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

*15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851. *
Click to expand...
Not just guided by the light of reason, and it depends what “free” means here. If Pius is condemning religious liberty, then clearly he was not speaking infallibly and was corrected by Vatican II. If he’s condemning the view that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as your reason tells you it’s true, then of course he’s right to do so.
*16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846. *
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the Latin says that is translated by the preposition “in,” and what it means. If he’s condemning the view that people can be saved, in the final and fullest sense of the word, by just any religion, then again he’s right. If he’s condemning the idea that people who observe other religions may be saved, then again he’s clearly not expressing the permanent teaching of the Church. But since I believe this same Pope affirmed the idea of invincible ignorance, I don’t think he was saying that.
*17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. *
Click to expand...
I’d like to hear more on this from a good contemporary Catholic theologian (like Fr. Barron). It seems to me that such views are held today by people who are to all appearances accepted as orthodox, but perhaps not–perhaps the view Pope Pius is condemning here is a bit rosier than any orthodox Catholic could hold.
*18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849. *
Click to expand...
I certainly do not believe that Protestantism is “just another form.” Clearly in important respects it lacks means of grace and proper order that are present in Catholicism. That being said, in practice I often see things in Protestantism that I don’t find in Catholicism either:shrug:

Edwin
 
steve_b said:
Re: #117 my comments on the footnote were in this color.

  1. *]the translators even admitted Re: Irenaeus statement, “we have been unable to think of anything better. A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse”
Click to expand...

  1. You’re not distinguishing between what Coxe wrote and what Roberts and Rambaut (the actual translators) wrote. The translators said “we have been unable to think of anything better.” To which Coxe said, “an extraordinary confession,” because he was arguing that there were obviously better ways to translate the text, as witnessed by his alleged “candid Roman Catholic” source.
    To which I ask, why is that such an extrodinary confession?

    Coxe thought it was extraordinary for two learned Protestants to translate the text in a way that (to his mind) unnecessarily supported Catholic claims, and for them then t claim that they couldn’t find a better translation.
    And certainly why would it be hard to find a worse one? Worse for whom?
    Click to expand...
    Coxe would say, “worse for an accurate rendering of the text.” But of course it’s clear that for him a “good” translation is one that doesn’t support “Rome,” just as for you, no doubt, a “good” translation is one that does.

    Roberts and Rambaut, in contrast, come through with flying colors, don’t they? 😛
    The “candid Roman Catholic” as you say who the Protestant translators found to refute the translation that was sooooo damaging to read, was a… wait for the drum roll…a Catholic who disagreed with the Catholic Church position. Gee, what a surprise. :rolleyes:
    Click to expand...
    Not the translators. The American editor, Cleveland Coxe.

    Why does accuracy matter so little to you? I have already pointed this out to you once, and you ignore it. And this is not the first time you have shown this kind of disregard for actual evidence in your polemical zeal.

    But you’re right–it’s not clear who the “candid Roman Catholic” was, but if he was Guettee, then he certainly wasn’t a Catholic who remained in union with Rome.

    Of course, if his conversion to Orthodoxy happened because of his patristic scholarship, that doesn’t exactly look great for your side of the question, does it? 😛

    Edwin
 
Should you take it slowly? I think on the Gospels how Jesus quite often says just the reverse.

Because it is summer time RCIA classes are probably out of the question right now, so I would recommend the following two books.
  1. Evangelical is not Enough by Thomas Howard
    This is a great book and would probably speak to you personally as there is much in the book as Thomas was a practicing Anglican while in Europe.
  2. Surprised by Truth Vol 1 edited by Patrick Madrid.
    This is not just a book about conversion stories. The conversion stories are packed full of early church fathers quotes and scripture quotes. The converts in this book mostly came kicking and screaming into the Catholic Church. The one unifying force for all of them was an adherence to the truth. They were not bigots, but had intellectual issues as they saw the Catholic Church from Protestant viewpoints.
 
Two books I would recommend are the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by St. John Paul II and Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity.

And read the Bible…which should include prayer! 🙂

On a personal note, one thing that I noticed as I grew closer to the Church and eventually entered was that I became much closer to Mary than I previously was. If you don’t pray the rosary, I encourage you to pray maybe a few Hail Mary’s a day. :)🙂
 
TimothyH said:
Books won’t get you to heaven.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
If “ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ”, then yes, books will get you to heaven! 😉

The main factor (under the prompting of the Holy Spirit) that drew me from Protestantism to Catholicism was the inner logic of the Scriptures pointed toward the Church. But yeah, I get what you’re saying. Pope Francis said the following the other day:

Today the Lord says to us quite clearly: in the mentality of the Gospel, you do not convince people with arguments, strategies or tactics. You convince them by simply learning how to welcome them.
 
Contarini said:
You’re not distinguishing between what Coxe wrote and what Roberts and Rambaut (the actual translators) wrote.

The translators said “we have been unable to think of anything better.” To which Coxe said, “an extraordinary confession,” because he was arguing that there were obviously better ways to translate the text, as witnessed by his alleged “candid Roman Catholic” source.

Coxe thought it was extraordinary for two learned Protestants to translate the text in a way that (to his mind) unnecessarily supported Catholic claims, and for them then t claim that they couldn’t find a better translation.

Coxe would say, “worse for an accurate rendering of the text.” But of course it’s clear that for him a “good” translation is one that doesn’t support “Rome,” just as for you, no doubt, a “good” translation is one that does.

Roberts and Rambaut, in contrast, come through with flying colors, don’t they? 😛

Not the translators. The American editor, Cleveland Coxe.

Why does accuracy matter so little to you? I have already pointed this out to you once, and you ignore it. And this is not the first time you have shown this kind of disregard for actual evidence in your polemical zeal.
Click to expand...
Whether Roberts and Donaldson edited the work or Coxe wrote prefaces and occasional notes, doesn’t change the points I made.
C:
But you’re right–it’s not clear who the “candid Roman Catholic” was, but if he was Guettee, then he certainly wasn’t a Catholic who remained in union with Rome.

Of course, if his conversion to Orthodoxy happened because of his patristic scholarship, that doesn’t exactly look great for your side of the question, does it? 😛

Edwin
Click to expand...
All the ECF’s are Catholic in the Catholic Church. That looks great for my side 😛
 
JDNaman said:
I am a young, eighteen-year-old English Christian, and I have gone to Anglican churches during the three years of my life as a Christian. For the majority of the time since I became a Christian, I have been feeling drawn to the Catholic Church. I’ve done a fair amount of research about it, and over my Christan life I have become progressively more Catholic and less evangelical (and a bit less liberal) in my outlook and intuition.
However, although my local Catholic parish priest advises me to “make haste slowly,” I feel like I have been sort of dragging this decision without actually doing any in-depth research. The only full-length books I’ve read are “Nothing in My Hand I Bring” by Ray Galea, written from a Protestant point of view, and “Why Catholics Are Right” by Michael Coren (who, as some of you will know, is no longer a Roman Catholic). I’m actually slightly bored of the theological differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, and I wish I could be fully a part of a particular church (although Paul says in Ephesians that there is only one church). For two and a half years I have not been able to take communion in Anglican churches as I feel strongly as if I shouldn’t, since I’m not sure whether I believe in Catholicism or not, although if I’m honest, part of the reason is that I feel a bit embarrassed having to take a blessing when everyone else takes communion – not something I should worry about, I know.
I am about to start studying philosophy and theology at university this autumn, and I will be learning church history in depth as part of that, so I think then will be a good time to start thinking really seriously about it and maybe finally make a decision at some point. However, I feel like I should still be thinking and reading about it. What would you suggest I should do during my summer break before I go to university? I’m going on vacation very soon (the day after tomorrow) and I feel like I should read something to do with the Catholic Church or general early church history, since I still haven’t this summer, though I’d rather read one of the other books I’ve already bought but haven’t read instead. Perhaps I could get a book by John Henry Newman on my Kindle.
Where do you think I should go from here, from now until I go to university after the summer vacation?
Click to expand...
Here is a great website by former Protestants (reformed) who are now Catholic. They touch on everything.

calledtocommunion.com/

As so many others will tell you read the Church Fathers, Catechism, Scriptures etc.
Here is another website with a nice bibliography.

moses.creighton.edu/harmless/bibliographies_for_theology/
 
I was also a lifelong Anglican. The part of Catholicism that I could not refute was the idea of authority. As you know, there is really no such thing as authority in the Anglican Church beyond the local bishop.

Jesus told the Apostles, “He who hears you hears me,” and if someone “will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican.” He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and told the Apostles that whatever they proclaim on earth is proclaimed in heaven.

That’s authority.

When I was Anglican, I thought the Catholic Church was right about everything except the Papacy. I came to realize the Catholic Church got that one right as well.
 
The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akins

May the Lord be good to you.
 
For me it came down to history. It is clear from the very earliest Church that the hierarchy of bishops was essential. That basically eliminated the Reformed branches of Christianity. It only left the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and the ELCA (at least here in the US). It was also clear that the early Church (read the Didache) forbade abortions, and I was already Pro-Life, so that eliminated the ELCA and the Anglican forms of Christianity. The choice between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church was harder, but the Catholic Church has a greater theological depth and breadth than the Orthodox Church as well as incorporating Eastern Catholic Churches that are similar to the Orthodox theologies. In the end the Catholic Church best represented the one, holy, and apostolic church of the creed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top