Posted on 06/21/2018 9:48:25 PM PDT by boatbums
Over the years, I’ve had several Catholic friends and converts ask why I ultimately didn’t convert to their denomination. During my first two years of college, I spent a significant amount of time with Catholics, including at the (then?) US Opus Dei headquarters in NYC. I attended these gatherings with a good friend, who eventually decided to convert from Evangelicalism. I came close to converting, but ultimately decided against it. This has surprised some Catholics. I suspect this is because the standard narrative is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are crossing the Tiber in great droves.
Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years, Catholicism has lost millions of adherents, most of these converting to a kind of nonreligious spiritualism/secularism or to Protestantism, while millions more Protestants remain Protestant. For every one person who converts to Catholicism, about six leave the church.
Still, the notion that Catholicism is attracting large numbers of Protestant converts, with no movement in the other direction, can create the impression that there is something irresistible about Catholicism to anyone who studies it. My reasons for remaining Protestant haven’t changed a great deal, although they have become more refined, especially since seminary. I would like to share some of them here.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...
You’d think after being around for the 2000 yrs they claim they’d gotten around to providing a clear interpretation of the texts.
That is my experience also, but sometimes I'd sneak our Catholic Bible out and try to read it anyways. But it never made any sense. I had NO CLUE where to even start. I probably started in Numbers for all I know.
Regardless, when I relate that expeirne3ce, I m told I'm lying, that the Catholic church never forbade the reading of Scripture. So be ready for someone to accuse you of that.
Interesting thing is, so many former Catholics recall being told that and we all came from different parts of the country and we all remember the same thing, that it takes it out of the realm of*You're lying* or *You misunderstood*.
LOL. When I read the Protestant apologetic against Catholicism, "robust exegesis" is not what I'm seeing. More like a robust disregard for either textual or cultural context, exhibited during a frantic search for prooftexts to rip out of context and use as weapons, while the texts that might support the Catholic view are simply swept under the carpet.
His "off the top of his head" reason number 3 means he doesn't understand the difference between "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions" and the "teaching of the church".
Number 4 tells me he doesn't understand that the "post Vatican II ethos" has even less authority than "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions". (The actual documents of Vatican II, IMO, clearly teach the same thing as Pius IX and other Popes before him: only invincible ignorance can excuse lack of Christian faith.)
Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible.
Where does the Bible teach that justifying grace is only forensic and external, i.e., that justification means a change in how God views us, not also a change God works in us at exactly the same time?
It’s not like they haven’t had the time or resources.
Though we have seen the denomination that claims to have never changed has indeed changed.
Pope Leo XIII attached an indulgence to reading of the Gospels "by the faithful" in 1898. The church doesn't indulgence an act she finds objectionable or even unwise.
Here's the actual citation:
“An indulgence of 300 days for reading the Holy Gospels is granted to all the Faithful who read these Holy Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, with reverence due to the Divine Word and as spiritual reading…. A Plenary indulgence under the usual conditions is granted once a month for the daily reading.” Pope Leo XIII. December, 1898, Preces et Pia Opera, 045. (Enchiridion Indulgentiarium, 694).
Pope Pius VII wrote to bishops in 1820:
... to encourage their people to read the Holy Scriptures; for nothing can be more useful, more consoling, and more animating, inasmuch as they serve to confirm the faith, support the hope, and influence the charity of the true Christian.
Lest you think this was something kept from American Catholics, the Third Council of Baltimore taught in 1884:
“It can hardly be necessary for us to remind you, beloved brethren, that the most highly valued treasure of every family library, and the most frequently and lovingly made use of, should be the Holy Scriptures.... We hope that no family can be found amongst us without a correct version of the Holy Scriptures.”Many more such citations are here.
That would be the Orthodox. The Catholic church has always claimed to be able to change things that are not defined dogma, and in particular to adapt prudential matters of governance -- how the faith is taught, not which faith is taught -- to different cultures, times, and places.
I can only cite a Roman Catholic source.
I do appreciate the quotes you provided.
However, too many Roman Catholics on these threads, and other forums, have echoed the position that Roman Catholics were not actively encourage to read the texts on their own.
By this I mean private individual reading/study....not the limited Scripture a Roman Catholic hears at Mass.
You're saying the meaning of the texts change from culture to culture?
I'd think John 3:16 would be universal across all cultures.
A ‘worldly mindset’ caused divisions in Christianity, the Pope said.
DANG!
What has caused divisions in Catholicism??
Now, Now, lets give credit where it is due:
Luk 12:51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!
We have all heard the old joke, “there are two kinds of people in the world...………….”
What is the point Jesus is deviding on?
The answer to this is what we should be deciding on first. (note I said first) I have no doubt a few P will make it to heaven, and maybe even a few RC.
Division beyond the major point can lead to destruction or construction. But that does not mean we should avoid division, but maybe we should understand the math and check our work...……………………...
Amen to that.
Remember that over the last several years Catholics have been encouraged to read the Bible.
Equally, I reject the premise, hidden or not, that any one theology is perfectly correct. We see through a glass darkly - all of us. For that reason, I am much more interested in the Bible than any theology.
Even when at mass when the reading of scripture a GOOD THING because one is hearing the word of God.
Do not be negative about it.
However, I do like some of their traditions,
Most people going from P to RC will comment on traditions, music, emotional, visual things.
Most people going for RC to P with talk about truth and logic, and the Bible being the source of truth, not the church.
What about the tribulation saints who became Christians and died martyrs?
They went to Heaven.
Is hearing the same as listening/understanding the Word?
. However, I do like some of their traditions,
(Matthew 15:3) Jesus replied, “And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?
(Matthew 15:6) In this way, you say they don’t need to honor their parents. And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition.
Mark 7:8) For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.”
(Mark 7:9) Then He said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition.
(Mark 7:13) And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition. And this is only one example among many others.”
I don’t think Jesus is saying all traditions are bad. The problems with traditions are they change over time so much that they replace Gods word. The solution to that is to always go back to Gods word as the test of truth, not church or tradtions. And yes, P have the same problem, so what is the solution?
I've not encountered on a regular basis the Roman Catholic who uses/understands the textual or cultural context of the New Testament.
Additionally, when I've shown passages in their proper context that RCs cite to justify their doctrines, that do not support their position, they are ignored.
It is the rare post where a Roman Catholic has demonstrated applying the passage in question in proper context and understanding the Greek behind the passage.
When I've shown how the ECFs contradict each other Roman Catholics ignore that.
I will cite the Immaculate Conception as one of examples when one of Roman Catholicism's own sources admit there is no direct or categorical Scriptural support for the doctrine nor is there unanimous consent among the ECFs on the dogma.....yet Roman Catholicism continues to double down on the dogma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.